Davis Stance

[DG]

Originally posted by 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.

Amazing! While using the stance two weeks ago I was hit twice the same game, a 4A varsity game. The first was a foul tip to my chest protector. It hurt. Maybe, if I had been a few feet farther back it would have hit me in the face mask instead. The second was a pitch straight to my face mask, that was never touched by the catcher. It hurt less than the chest protector shot. I was locked into position and tracked it straight to my mask. To not be hit but once since 1999 is simply amazing, with any stance.

[Tim C]

DG, please remember one thing:

I try to work LESS than 50 games a season and that means about 25 to 30 plate games is all I work in any single season.

Regards,

[tmp44]

Originally posted by DG

Amazing! While using the stance two weeks ago I was hit twice the same game, a 4A varsity game. The first was a foul tip to my chest protector. It hurt. Maybe, if I had been a few feet farther back it would have hit me in the face mask instead. The second was a pitch straight to my face mask, that was never touched by the catcher. It hurt less than the chest protector shot. I was locked into position and tracked it straight to my mask. To not be hit but once since 1999 is simply amazing, with any stance.

I've never used the GD system so I can't comment on the number of times of being hit....However, DG, the second shot you took I think you can take to the catcher being inept, not the system. If you took a pitch straight to the mask without anyone touching it, if you're in the slot, regardless of the stance you're using, I think you're going ot get hit at least somewhere on that pitch.

That being said, I have a PONY game tonight and will be trying the GD for the first time...wish me luck!

[mick]

The worst hit I have ever taken in the stance:

Right-handed batter and I was very, very comfortable.
Seeing the ball every pitch.
Too comfortable!
Inside pitch fouled straight back to my left elbow.
I forgot to put my left wing back.
It was just nasty!

mick

[Kaliix]

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.

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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
I've seen many major league umpires move with the catcher to call pitches, so I feel confident that the idea has some merit.

Which ones?

[scyguy]

Even though I do not move with the catcher, I have also seen some big dogs use this technique. Who? I have no idea the names of most major league umpires. I am lucky to remember my own name.

[Kaliix]

I couldn't actually name one off the top of my head. But that's not saying much. I've been trying to track which major league umpires wear the hockey style masks. I actually wrote down the three I've seen so far (I just started last week) and the only one I can remember off the top of my head is Tim Welke.

Go figure...

Originally posted by LDUB

Which ones?

[Tim C]

Gary Cederstrom (sp) might wear one.

[GarthB]

"It is physically impossible to see the actual plate better if one moves back from the catcher. This is simple physics."

You appear to be missing half the equation in your physics. In the GD stance, the umpire moves back and up.

I used the GD stance for a season and had a great view of the plate, and as Carl stated, the dirt behind the plate. I switched back to heel-toe/heel-toe (actually heel-toe/heel-instep) after attending Evans' Desert Classic and feeling more comfortable with it. Nevertheless, I understand the propopents of the GD stance and can personally attest to the accuracy of their claims.

[Kaliix]

When I first responded to this thread, I qualified that statement by saying, "Assuming you lock in at the same head height each time, backing up will not help you see more of the plate." That is what I was referring to.

I think part of why the Davis stance may not be as effective for me is because I am 1) 5'10" and 2) I have a long torso and short legs. Because my knees are low to the ground, putting my hands on them doesn't make me sit up very high. For a taller person, with longer legs, the Davis stance probably puts less stress on the back and sits them up higher.

Originally posted by GarthB
"It is physically impossible to see the actual plate better if one moves back from the catcher. This is simple physics."

You appear to be missing half the equation in your physics. In the GD stance, the umpire moves back and up.

I used the GD stance for a season and had a great view of the plate, and as Carl stated, the dirt behind the plate. I switched back to heel-toe/heel-toe (actually heel-toe/heel-instep) after attending Evans' Desert Classic and feeling more comfortable with it. Nevertheless, I understand the propopents of the GD stance and can personally attest to the accuracy of their claims.

[GarthB]

"When I first responded to this thread, I qualified that statement by saying, "Assuming you lock in at the same head height each time, backing up will not help you see more of the plate." That is what I was referring to."

Then, quite simply, you were not referring to the GD stance.

[Kaliix]

Really???

You vary your head height in the Gerry Davis stance.

I did not know that.

Originally posted by GarthB
"When I first responded to this thread, I qualified that statement by saying, "Assuming you lock in at the same head height each time, backing up will not help you see more of the plate." That is what I was referring to."

Then, quite simply, you were not referring to the GD stance.

[Tim C]

Two points:

Something whicih has no value to the thread first:

I think the percentage of MLB umpires that use the Davis stance is probably equal to the percentage of MLB umires that wear the hockey helmet.

The point being is that both are minorities.

Second point, is that as you move deeper with the Davis stance you must work with a higher head height.

You say physics I say "angle" . . . as you move more deep you, by neccessity, need to work higher to compensate.

Look for my upcoming article on this website about other difficulties I have face when working the Davis Stance.

[GarthB]

""Assuming you lock in at the same head height each time, backing up will not help you see more of the plate." That is what I was referring to....

Really???

You vary your head height in the Gerry Davis stance.

I did not know that."

Now it appears you're choosing to not understand.

When I said you are not referring to the GD stance I was referring to your comment about keeping your head at the same postion as you back up. In the GD stance, you are further back and your head is higher then in the heel/toe stance. This way, contrary to your first position to Carl, one CAN see the plate better.

I'll take a page from Tee's book here. I'm done with this thread. Read Carl's dissertation at officiating.com or wait for Tee's column.