Davis Stance

[Rich]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Assuming you lock in at the same head height each time, backing up will not help you see more of the plate. It is a physical impossibility. You reduce the angle over the catcher to the plate by backing up and will therefore see less of it

Now you might get a better look at the ball somehow by backing up, but you will not actually see the plate better. It is not physically possible.

You'll see the ball into the glove better, and that's all that matters. I know where the plate is -- I'm not actually looking down for it.

[Tim C]

I KNOW where the corner is . . .

[DG]

Originally posted by Tim C
I KNOW where the corner is . . .

Knowing where the corner is, and being able to see it are entirely two different things. GD proponents say they can see more of the plate by backing up, and I don't see how that is possible. Backing up just puts more of the catcher in your way of seeing the plate.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

Knowing where the corner is, and being able to see it are entirely two different things. GD proponents say they can see more of the plate by backing up, and I don't see how that is possible. Backing up just puts more of the catcher in your way of seeing the plate.

The plate? We've always said that you can see the ball better. Again, who cares where the plate is? It doesn't move, does it?

[akalsey]

I've been experimenting with the GD system while the pitcher takes warmups between innings. I can see the ball well, but I'm not sure I'd be able to catch a catcher's interference from back there.

And no the plate doesn't move but I do work one field where the plate is pointed at right-center field instead of second base.

If a coach wants to complain that I'm set up too far back, I'll tell them that they're apparently able to see the pitches better than I from the dugout, so I thought I'd try getting farther away too.

[Carl Childress]

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.

[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...

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.

[Carl Childress]

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.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
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.

Why don't you just stay in the slot?

[ChapJim]

I've been using GD for almost a year, well over 100 games. I'm very comfortable with it, have no problem with the fact that I don't always see the ball into the catcher's glove, may not always see the plate if the catcher sets up inside. The improved look at the pitch makes up for it. Plus, I NEVER have to call interference on myself!

I get lots of comments from senior umpires in my association ("Jiiiiiimmm, how long have you been setting up that far back from the catcher?") although rarely is such a comment combined with anything about missing pitches.

I had a significant problem with GD when I started. I did the exaggerated wide stance and tore up hip flexors in about a week and a half. Clearly didn't stretch enough. I shortened up (I'm only about 5'10" so it's probably better that I'm a bit higher) which kept things from getting worse but I never really recovered until after fall ball.

Among other benefits of GD is the lack of fatigue. One weekend last fall, I worked four games on Saturday and two on Sunday. Last July, I had one Sat-Sun where I worked six games, including 34 innings of plate work. Still came back and did games Monday night both times. I'm 59.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by ChapJim
I've been using GD for almost a year, well over 100 games. I'm very comfortable with it, have no problem with the fact that I don't always see the ball into the catcher's glove, may not always see the plate if the catcher sets up inside. The improved look at the pitch makes up for it. Plus, I NEVER have to call interference on myself!

I get lots of comments from senior umpires in my association ("Jiiiiiimmm, how long have you been setting up that far back from the catcher?") although rarely is such a comment combined with anything about missing pitches.

I had a significant problem with GD when I started. I did the exaggerated wide stance and tore up hip flexors in about a week and a half. Clearly didn't stretch enough. I shortened up (I'm only about 5'10" so it's probably better that I'm a bit higher) which kept things from getting worse but I never really recovered until after fall ball.

Among other benefits of GD is the lack of fatigue. One weekend last fall, I worked four games on Saturday and two on Sunday. Last July, I had one Sat-Sun where I worked six games, including 34 innings of plate work. Still came back and did games Monday night both times. I'm 59.

This may sound like a case of "the first liar doesn't have a chance." Last year, I worked four USSSA 14u games in an international tournament, all behind the plate. I was 67.

[moorg]

Originally posted by Kaliix
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...

When a batter fouls off a pitch, where does it generally go? If it's not down the line it's straight back. Straight from his barrel back. Where's the barrel? Out over the plate. Where's the catcher? Out over the plate. I promise you'll be hit more if you are not working the slot.

Not to mention other advantages like having a consistant look at the batters hands and the same view of every pitch.

In my area (some place in TX) we generally have media personel on the field in designated areas behind home plate. This puts them 40+ feet behind the plate and either to the left or right about 40 feet or so. When a left handed batter is up they scamper to the media area on the right side. They know that if he sends a foul ball back that it's going either straight back or slightly to the right. But it won't go behind his back. They are compromising their best view of the game just so they don't get killed by a foul ball.

EDIT: Also, take a look at the 2004 NCAA evaluation form where it states "Works in the 'slot', not over the catcher or to the outside." I don't want to seem critical, but there's a lot of good reasons for working the slot.

[Edited by moorg on May 15th, 2005 at 05:45 PM]

[ChapJim]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
[/B]

This may sound like a case of "the first liar doesn't have a chance." Last year, I worked four USSSA 14u games in an international tournament, all behind the plate. I was 67. [/B][/QUOTE]
I knew as soon as I hit "Submit Reply" that I shouldn't have done that!

I hope that eight years from now, I can say I did four games anywhere!

[Tim C]

Let's see . . . where in any GD discussion does it say we do not work in the slot.

My nose is on the side edge of the plate every time . . .

Getting hit must be anecdotal:

Since I started the Davis Stance in 1999 I have been hit ONCE -- that's ONCE -- I got hit a bunch more than that working the heel-to-toe.

PLUS by working further back, in theroy, it would give the ball LONGER to rise before getting to the umpire therefore it would more often miss the umpire.

Sorry, I buy into very little of what you posted.

[Lawrence_Dorsey]

I buy into everything that Carl, Tee, and Rich say about the GD stance. Heck I even talk with Scott Ehret on the phone several times a year. However, I've tried it and all I can say is that I really need someone who knows what they are doing to give me some hands-on training. I am 5 ft 7 and I have a really hard time getting any kind of squat in the GD that allows me to set and still see over the catcher, particularly big varsity catchers. I'll keep trying it. Heck, we are between HS and Legion seasons here and I've got a 13-14 game Wednesday night. Maybe I'll try it for the whole game regardless of my temptation to go back to the heel-toe.

Lawrence