I'm just trolling for opinions from anyone who is/has used the Gerry Davis mechanics behind the plate.

I started using it mid-season because back and knees were sore. I formerly used heel to toe in the slot. So far I like it just fine, not as tiring. I have been hit some but I don't think any more than usual. It is also a rock solid stance which is good for tracking pitches. Last week I took a fast ball directly to the face mask that the catcher did not get a glove on. I never moved, tracked it directly from hand to mask. Then I asked the catcher "is that the best you can do?"

Well,
 

I have used the stance (or a style of it) since 1999 and have often talked of my feelings.

Since working with the stance I have been hit far less than when I was a heel-to-toe guy.

I have a column coming to the paid side of this website that discusses several issues about the stance and my use of it.

I've used it for three seasons now. It's great. I do feel that I get hit a little more but not appreciably ... and then who really knows?

I track pitches better from release to catch. I see the bottom of the zone better. I look different from the other umpires in my association, but I truly feel it works better. And obviously it is much more comfortable and easier on your body. You can do more games in a day without your legs dying.

Not only do I see the pitches better but I also see the batter better - I know when he swings and when he doesn't, when he is hit by pitch and when he is not, I see the foul ball deflections better. I see the pitches more like a batter sees them. I don't get visually blocked out of the play by a rising catcher.

I haven't been tangled up with a catcher for a long time because I'm 2-3 feet farther away... so the catcher can also do a better job and make more outs.

All in all, this stance allows you to do your job better than scrunched up behind the catcher.

Try it... now before your season is over.;)

I just started using the full system about 2 weeks ago. I have used some of the other principles, but I did not put my hands on my knees. When I changed to the system I was a complete convert. I was concerned at being hit in the arms by a fouled off pitch. Now I cannot see what took me so long to change my stance. I can see the entire pitch a lot better no matter where it was thrown to. I am much more stable and locked in on a pitch. Even if you want to move out of the way, you do not have the same ability to move.

Peace

I began using it this season. I agree with all who have posted that it has allowed me to call a better, more consistent strike zone. I believe that I'm getting hit a bit more, and like JRutledge I have the concern that my arms (especially elbows) seem more exposed.

But, overall I believe it has improved my zone and is physically less taxing on the body as a whole.

Doug

I am trying to perfect the stance and have been using it in JV games and some varsity. The benefits have already been discussed, but my problem is with the up and down part of the zone. In heel/toe, I set up with upper part of zone at my chin, but in GD I am higher and have not perfected a solid delination. Plus, the lower part seems more difficult in GD than heel/toe. I guess I just need to keep working with it till I am confident.

scy - bend the knees a bit more - I had that problem at first too.

I think my view of the zone is MUCH improved in this stance, especially the low outside pitches. And the strain on my back is tremendously less than the old scissors method.

" . . . bend the knees a bit more '

---------

Or follow the teachings of the stance and widen your stance even more.

---------

My head height, while higher than when working heel-to-toe, is the exact same everytime and the view of the up/down zone is a little different . . . you learn to handle the difference.



[Edited by Tim C on May 13th, 2005 at 03:35 PM]

approx how wide should I keep my legs? Is there any way I can guage my head height? Reference point? How far should I be from catcher? 18"- 2'?

[Edited by scyguy on May 13th, 2005 at 03:39 PM]

I'm finding that I am getting the bottom of the zone much better with the wider stance I'm taking. I'm not getting the "shoulda sent ya up there with a nine-iron" cracks at all.

I've been going with the arms length from the catcher and feet spread a little more than shoulders width apart.

Doug

" . . ."shoulda sent ya up there with a nine-iron" cracks at all."

----

Hahahaha!

----
How wide? Don't know:

The issue falls into how tall you are? is your height in your legs or torso? how wide can you go?

I am really stretched out! To the point that my toes are splayed at 45* -- I don't bend my knees at all, I just bend forward and place my hands on my knees.

From the photo I saw yesterday my chin was about 2" above the catcher's helmet BUT he was kind of a big guy. I am the ame height no matter the size of the catcher.

All I can say . . . I am as wide as I can be for my age (old) and build (fat).

I am 3 FEET back (4 FEET if I am blocked) and as wide as I can . . . much more than you describe for yourself. From your description I doubt if you are working a true Davis Stance.

[Edited by Tim C on May 13th, 2005 at 03:42 PM]

do you try to protect your hands by placing your thumbs in the top part of your leg guards and wrapping your hands around your knees?

Try this link for information on the system.
http://childress.officiating.com/

I started using the stance two years ago. I really like it for many of the reasons mentionned previously. Plus by working farther back from the catcher, you just get a different perspective. You don't tire as quickly. Good overall view of the plate. You can really ger locked in and relax as the pitch comes in.

In my association, two guys adopted the stance last year after talking to me about it. Both liked it and I had a couple of others mention at a clinic that they want to give it a try. I think it will really become popular over the next few years as more and more umpires give it a shot.

scyguy,
 

The only thing I worry about with my hands is that they are on my thighs and not on my leg guards.

I have Carlucci Extended Guards so that means that the "V" formed by my thumb and first finger is on my thigh.

[Edited by Tim C on May 14th, 2005 at 11:31 AM]

wow, you are far back. I will try to get further back my next JV game and let you know how it feels. 3' sounds like a long way back. Any coaches comment on the distance you are from the catcher?

Hehehehe,
 

See my upcoming article for answers to questions much like that . . .

Looking forward to it, Tim !!!


Doug

Unlike Tee, I don't judge my distance from the catcher. Rather, I start on the back line of the catcher's box (I pace it off after I dust the plate if it's not drawn in -- and it's never drawn in). I adjust forward a little if the batter is far forward in the box.

A few comments!
 

Having been a knee guy for years, I switched two summers ago (gave me a summer to work on it) and its great.

I have been hit only a few times and that was with a bad catcher.

Like Tee, I put my hands on my knees so I do worry about being hit sometimes.

I have from time to time a coach ask me 'why are you so far back now' since they have seen me work before, but no comments but positive about the zone.

It allows me to be a lot more consistent with the low pitches. The first year I strugged from time to time with the high strike since it can change a lot from batter to batter, but with experience now no problems.

Comments: the fans love to say, "get up to the plate blue so you can see it."

But that just shows their ignorance. I have been working with most of our association to get back further from the catcher and so far the comments have been very favorable.

Thanks
David

I have switched back from the GD to heel-toe in the slot. I had a hard time seeing the outside of the plate with taller catchers. Maybe my height (5'10) had something to do with it. I loved the stance, just felt like I was blocked someitmes. I never understood how backing up farther corrected getting blocked.

It corrects it because you sit HIGHER.

What I mean is this. Even if you stand straight up, when you move back you lose more area in front of the catcher. I guess taller catchers arent' as troublesome as those who really crowd the plate. If a catcher is close enough that I can't see part of the plate (usually when he sits up inside) then backing up only makes the plate disappear more for me.

Then,
 

You are doing something wrong.

I am 6'.

I worked behind a guy 6'5" and 240 lbs. the other night.

Not only can I always see the WHOLE plate I can see the sirt betwix the point of the plate and the catcher.

Re: Then,
 

Tee, where is your head placement (vertically) compared to the catcher's head? For as far back as you say you stand it sounds like your head has to be pretty high to see the plate....

I started using the Gerry Davis stance at the beginning of last season. In 55 games at the plate I was only hit once in an area not protected. This year I've been hit twice in 16 games at the plate. I don't feel any more or any less protected than when I'm in the heel and toe position. I do take my hands off my knees and bring them about to my waist just about the time the pitcher releases the ball. It has helped my consistancy considerably. Mostly because I am set well before the pitch comes.

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.

DG
 

You simply, don't get it.

No prob . . . you just aren't understanding . . .

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.

As said,
 

I KNOW where the corner is . . .

Re: As said,
 

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.

Re: Re: As said,
 

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?

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. :)

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 <i>more often</i> 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 <i>down</i> 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. <i>They</i> 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.

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 <i>your</i> 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.

Why don't you just stay in the slot?

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.

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]

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!

Hmmm,
 

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.

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

Re: Hmmm,
 

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.

One thing,
 

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,

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

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!

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

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.

Which ones?

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.

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...

Kaliix,
 

Gary Cederstrom (sp) might wear one.

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

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

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.

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.

<B>"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."</B>

Then, quite simply, you <b>were not</b> referring to the GD stance.

Really???

You vary your head height in the Gerry Davis stance.

I did not know that.

Kaliix:
 

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.

<b>""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."</B>

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.

You don't VARY your head height in the GD stance...

However, your head height is significantly higher in the GD stance than it is in the heel-toe, hide behind the catcher stance.

And physics is the wrong term... geometry would be more correct.

Imagine, if you will, heel-toe stance, close to the catcher, nose on the inside edge (unless the catcher wants to be there), eyes at the top of the individual batter's zone (again, unless the catcher wants to be there or hold his glove there). Now think of the angles...

High inside pitch in the zone: there is no angle the pitch is coming straight for your eyes. If you can not flinch, this pitch is easy to judge - up/down, in/out. It is either above or below your eye and left or right of your nose. Simple.

Low inside pitch in the zone: It is still inline with your nose and the edge of the plate. But, now there is a significant "down" angle from horizontal view at your eyes to the ball as it crosses the plate (30-45 degrees?) because you are close to the plate. As an umpire you must now judge the distance from your eyes to that ball. Does that distance place the ball below the zone or still in it? The catcher's method can add clues to assist in your judgement. Additionally, distance judgement requires the use of both eyes - you can't accurately judge distance with one eye. So were both eyes on the ball? Did a bar from your mask partially block your vision? Did the catcher move in front of one of your eyes? Yes, because you are closer to the catcher you are more occluded and protected from the incoming pitch but you are also more likely to have your vision occluded and not be able to see the full flight of the ball. Hence it is more plausible to make incorrect judgements because you got blocked out and did receive the full set of information.

High outside pitch in the zone: pitch is still level with your eyes at the top of the zone. But the decision of in and out of the zone (over the plate or not) requires the same visual acuity as for the down-and-in pitch (20 degree angle?). Both eyes on the ball is still required, perhaps a slightly less significant angle, and the actions of the catcher are often less patent for an outside pitch (mitt swipes across the zone and swings beyond the zone). For the umpire it is just as difficult to judge and perhaps more difficult to sell because the catchers actions don't allow a solid "frame."

Low outside pitch in the zone: double the angles (20 degrees out and 30 degrees down) and the location of the catch is nearly always through or behind the catcher from your visual vantage point - the ball goes out of sight! Way difficult to do a good job here. Dare I say guess? As umpires we can act all kinds of confident and be assured the we are doing the best we can for judging that pitch. But I'm betting that for many of them you feel the decision was an educated guess. And that you may justify your call based upon the catcher's actions rather than the ball's location, which you couldn't discern.

My understanding of the GD Stance is that you are significantly farther back from the plate and you place your head above the zone. Head placement is in the same place every time, looking down into zone and independent of the batter's height. This is how I do it. I feel it offers consistency.

This distance away from the plate changes several things:

The angles for judging distance and ball location are less significant - you are more in-line with the flight of the ball. It is easier to judge location when you are closer to in-line with the flight of the ball - just like the high inside pitch.

The distance also gets you farther away from the catcher. Yes, the catcher doesn't block as much of the area in front of you. Perhaps you will get hit by more wild pitches or foul balls - perhaps fewer, as Tim pointed out, because the ball has more time to expand away from you. Who knows? I was working the GD Stance and took two nasty shots last week - thigh/groin area and left bicepts; both glanced off of the handle end of the bat.

But the catcher doesn't block as much visual area either. You now can see the batter and immediately see whether the ball nicked him or not. You can see his check swings without worrying about the catcher rising up in front your eyes or putting his mitt in your face.

All in all, for me, the stance is far superior. It offers a more consistent view of the pitch and therefore more consistent strike/ball judgements. It also offers a vastly improved view of the other elements of the game. It is the quickest and most significant improvement I have made in my umpiring since I began... in 1980. :D

Re: Kaliix:
 

Tee,
Your probably right. Not that that means a thing. I can see why umpires like the Davis stance. It just didn't work for me. There are pro's and con's to it, just like there are to everything in life. And that was all I was trying to point out.

FIRST TIME....
 

I had a PONY game tonight..used the GD system for the first time tonight. I'm hooked. The closest I came to getting hit tonight was some dirt that came out of the catcher's glove into my mask. I did have one problem, and that was with the shorter players (a couple of the kids were no taller than 4'6"-4'9"). Suggestions?

Re: FIRST TIME....
 

what was the problem? calling the high pitch or the low pitch.

i found that when I first started using the Davis stance, (or I guess its actually a variation that I picked up from watching some of the pros) I had a little problem with calling the high pitch too high.

But after a summer of work, I got it down and now its as consistent as it was when I had my knee stance.

Thanks
David

Re: Re: FIRST TIME....
 

With the shorter batters, my eye level was already above the strike zone and I just didn't feel comfortable in getting the low pitch (which with these kids would be just off the ground). Maybe after a few more games I'll get used to it?

had a district game last night, 8-1 in second. Losing catcher would not stay down. I told him he needed to get lower and stay out of my view. He could not adjust. So I did. I thought, how about trying the GD. I got about 3 feet behind catcher, spread my legs (LOL) and gave it a try. It felt weird to be that far back, but the angle was amazing. Tracking the ball seemed easier. I did not see the whole plate, but felt I saw the pitches fine. Need to work with it some more to get a better view of plate, but I liked it. I tried what must of been a version of the GD last year, but I was only 18" to 2' behind catcher. The added distance gave me a new perspective.

I am trying to understand. I have you and Tee telling me you move your head height up if you move back and I have DTTB saying that your head height should not change.

Now I am confused, which one is it?

Simply,
 

A disagreement.

As I go deeper I move higher . . . it is imparative that you do this or you lose sight of the outside corner.

All I can say is that I have used the stance since 1999. I work pretty high quality of high school baseball in my area and I DO change my head height when I am forced to work deeper. I do not move my head height UNLESS I go deeper (this may last a batter or two, never more).

Tony can intone what he wants . . . I do what is TAUGHT by the Davis clinicians.

Re: Simply,
 

I agree with Tee. We have few catcher's who really like to crowd the plate, they are almost always close to BI, and I find that with them as I move closer to the plate that my head height goes lower.

That gives the same angle on the high pitch that you have from further back (even if its only a few feet) with your head higher.

And I'm talking very good high school baseball and college guys, not small ball.

Thanks
David

Re: Simply,
 

Okay, that at least makes sense. If you move farther back, you stand upright a little more, thus raising your head height. Thanks Tee.