Strike three, Ball four

[Carbide Keyman]

I believe that some of our veteran members of my association do not subscribe to the belief that you should call out "Strike three" or "Ball four". The argument is made that you don't call "Strike one" etc., etc. and that the players should know what the count is.

I have seen two major league game in person this past week and watched several on television, and to a man the umpires have vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four". I also was at a AA game and the PU also vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four".

I would like some feedback from the more experienced members as to their take on this.


Thanks,


Doug

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Carbide Keyman
I believe that some of our veteran members of my association do not subscribe to the belief that you should call out "Strike three" or "Ball four". The argument is made that you don't call "Strike one" etc., etc. and that the players should know what the count is.

I have seen two major league game in person this past week and watched several on television, and to a man the umpires have vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four". I also was at a AA game and the PU also vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four".

I would like some feedback from the more experienced members as to their take on this.


Thanks,


Doug

Don't know if'n I'm "qualified", but that hasn't stopped me yet:

"Ball Four", if I do say it [rather than just "Ball"], you won't hear it unless you are B or F2.

"Strike 3": Called - yessiryoubetcha.
Swing-&-Missed - nope, just the hammer or point. 'Course, I also don't say "Strike" for S-&-M 1st or 2d strikes, either.

FWIW: I FORMERLY said "TWO" on a called 2d, esp. if it was the pitch right after a called 1st, or was in the exact same place as Strike 1. Evaluators didn't like that: I don't do it any more.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I've seen many umpires that put a number after each called pitch. It was generally an after-the-fact type statement - there is a slight pause between the designation of the pitch and then a following number.

We've got a very good, veteran umpire in our association that actually sells the THREE part of the call - his strike call is nearly the same as any other strike call and the THREE is emphasized. Don't know that it is right or wrong but that is what he does.

Personally, I don't use the numbers. My strike three doesn't even resemble a word. When you hear it, you know you're done. Humorously, I've only done a very few little league games and then I had to intentionally tone it down out of fear that I would scare the kids and make them cry.

I state the count often. The battery and the batter should always know the count - even if I don't say it. I state it often primarily so I can remember it (no idiotclickerthingamobob). But there is always the fence post, I mean coach, that is not even looking towards home as you are showing the count, that asks, "What's the count, Blue." And of course the deaf catchers who will also ask within 2 seconds of you just stating it.

Duh!

Strike calls should just be matter-of-fact. They are not ever to embarrass or show up the batter. Perhaps the veterans, of whom you are speaking, feel the use of a "number" may be showing up the batter (strikes) or possibly the pitcher (balls).

Little League probably needs to make it a requirement.

There are those kids that just stand in the box until either the umpire or the coach tells them they are done! "Nice job. Now hurry down to first... no that's third. First is this way. Good job! Way to watch those pitches."

[LMan]

FWIW, I dont verbalise anything but "strike!" on 1 and 2, but I *point* with one finger, then two fingers, to the side as the case may be. Perhaps no one sees it, but what the h*ll. I give the count after the 3d pitch, and every other pitch after that, except on 3-2, where I give it every pitch. No excuses for not knowing the count, but, yeah, the posts still ask

All S&Ms are silent, with finger point.

on a called K3, I loudly verbalise "strrrrrike" when I grab the chainsaw starting rope, and "threeeeee!" when I crank that thing

on ball 4, I usually just say 'ball' - if the batter doesnt move, Ill say 'ball four, duh'

[Tim C]

One of the biggest changes I have seen in professional umpiring (besides the stupid group hug sessions when the get together to "get the call right" and screw up the original call) is not only identifying the number of balls and strikes but many are also giving a verbal location on close pitches.

Now first things first:

I do not know of any area where I have worked that don't normally verbalize a third strike (when called), This sounds like it may be a local thing to your group.

Actually I do not know an umpire that doesn't do the big sell on strike three without some type reference to the number.

Mine actually sounds like: "Hike . . . heeee!"

Secondary to that is my reference about professioal umpires:

I often hear PU in the Majors identify the number of strike. In the most general of terms it is the younger guys that do this.

I now often hear on very close inside/outside pitches the umpire identify what the reason was for the ball call. "BALL, inside".

We know that decades ago in professional school umpires were taught to give a subtle body signal on each pitch to show how it missed. A quick glance on way or the other indicated inside outside . . . other activites showed up and down.

Somewhere in the late 70's and early 80's this process changed and at school you were taught to never identify a thing.

Now I am going to jump into the deep end of the pool with my answer to what has happened:

1) I believe, in my heart, that the arrogance of the umpire union management (make that Richie Phillips) lead to the change in identifying locations. I think this could possibly be confirmed by the lessen of legal tensions post 1999 and the reemergence of the umpire approachability.

2) I doubt if there is an organized effort to change the status quo. I think that umpires in this trendy, get it right, umpiring society believe that more information is better. And information can be an assistant in stopping discontent. And that is probably a good thing.

3) I know that personally I have gone to giving locations (inside and outside) on critical pitches and this has, in concert, lowered the questioning from the bench area.

Of course this is just all my opinion and will be ignored by certain other posters on this site.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Carbide Keyman
I believe that some of our veteran members of my association do not subscribe to the belief that you should call out "Strike three" or "Ball four". The argument is made that you don't call "Strike one" etc., etc. and that the players should know what the count is.

I have seen two major league game in person this past week and watched several on television, and to a man the umpires have vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four". I also was at a AA game and the PU also vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four".

I would like some feedback from the more experienced members as to their take on this.


Thanks,


Doug

Swinging strike 3 = Just a hand signal. You know you did it - I'm not going to rub your face in it.

Called strike 3 = Pull the bow and verbalize either "Hree!" or "Hike Hree!" depending on my mood.

Ball 4 = "Ball 4" usually disgusted. I hate walks, but if F1 can't hit the mark, I can't blame the batter. So my disgust goes to F1 in that case.

Sorry, I'm ranting.... Nurse! Medication please!

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Carbide Keyman

I believe that some of our veteran members of my association do not subscribe to the belief that you should call out "Strike three" or "Ball four". The argument is made that you don't call "Strike one" etc., etc. and that the players should know what the count is.

I have seen two major league game in person this past week and watched several on television, and to a man the umpires have vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four". I also was at a AA game and the PU also vocalized "Strike three" and "Ball four".

I would like some feedback from the more experienced members as to their take on this.


IMO it's simply a matter of umpire preference and is not really a big issue in clinics.

The more important aspect of calling balls/strikes is not so much in how one verbalizes but in the accuracy. Timing is the issue not so much how one calls the pitch.

An umpire calls the pitch in accordance with timing. If calling the pitches number by number gives an umpire better timing then so be it.

The ONE POINT that is stressed is not to verbalize a swinging strike 3 where everyone in the park knows what happened.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Tim C


I now often hear on very close inside/outside pitches the umpire identify what the reason was for the ball call. "BALL, inside".

We know that decades ago in professional school umpires were taught to give a subtle body signal on each pitch to show how it missed. A quick glance on way or the other indicated inside outside . . . other activites showed up and down.

Somewhere in the late 70's and early 80's this process changed and at school you were taught to never identify a thing.

Now I am going to jump into the deep end of the pool with my answer to what has happened:

1) I believe, in my heart, that the arrogance of the umpire union management (make that Richie Phillips) lead to the change in identifying locations. I think this could possibly be confirmed by the lessen of legal tensions post 1999 and the reemergence of the umpire approachability.

2) I doubt if there is an organized effort to change the status quo. I think that umpires in this trendy, get it right, umpiring society believe that more information is better. And information can be an assistant in stopping discontent. And that is probably a good thing.

3) I know that personally I have gone to giving locations (inside and outside) on critical pitches and this has, in concert, lowered the questioning from the bench area.

Of course this is just all my opinion and will be ignored by certain other posters on this site.

How timely your comments, Tee...............

Last night I worked with an ump I hadn't worked with in a few years. He's good buddies with one of the instructors for Evans. When I heard him calling ball and following with pitch locations I decided to question him between innings as to WHY the commentary. (I was taught to never give loud commentary audible to anyone other than the batter or catcher. Some even frown on quiet commentary to the batter and catcher).

Still, the response I received was that his instructor buddy said it's perfectly ok to give the loud commentary so the coach knows where you felt the pitch was off. In fact, he said not only had he spoken with the instructor yesterday, but he discussed this very issue because he was criticized for it by one of the HS chapter board members. I was somewhat amazed and said I'd see if Hensley would attempt to confirm this technique through Evans.............

So.......how 'bout it, Dave........
Can you find out if this is new era umpiring technique????


Freix

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Bfair
I was somewhat amazed and said I'd see if Hensley would attempt to confirm this technique through Evans.............

So.......how 'bout it, Dave........
Can you find out if this is new era umpiring technique????

My "ask Jim Evans" chits are precious and must be conserved. It's not like we're having pajama parties.

That said, I can confirm that 3 and 4 years ago, instructors at Wendelstadt's were training guys to verbalize the ball or strike number with each pitch - "ball 1, strike 1, strike 2, ball 2, etc." I can also confirm that professional umpires i've observed closely are, to a fairly consistent level, announcing locations where pitches have missed, as well as using the body language technique - slight turn of the head for inside/outside - to convey that "where it missed" information.

I announce locations on close balls - "that's down," "that missed," etc. I do not announce numbers on balls or strikes, until my called strike three, which is a classic "chainsaaw pull" with a verbal "THREE!"

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

My "ask Jim Evans" chits are precious and must be conserved. It's not like we're having pajama parties.

That said, I can confirm that 3 and 4 years ago, instructors at Wendelstadt's were training guys to verbalize the ball or strike number with each pitch - "ball 1, strike 1, strike 2, ball 2, etc." I can also confirm that professional umpires i've observed closely are, to a fairly consistent level, announcing locations where pitches have missed, as well as using the body language technique - slight turn of the head for inside/outside - to convey that "where it missed" information.

I announce locations on close balls - "that's down," "that missed," etc. I do not announce numbers on balls or strikes, until my called strike three, which is a classic "chainsaaw pull" with a verbal "THREE!"

Both schools instruct students to verbalize the number with each pitch. However, that ends when one goes to PBUC.

I haven't seen an MLB ump narrate every pitch that misses. It seems to be reserved for those that are "close" misses.

Personally, I announce strike three, but not ball four.

[Rich]

Originally posted by GarthB

Both schools instruct students to verbalize the number with each pitch. However, that ends when one goes to PBUC.

I haven't seen an MLB ump narrate every pitch that misses. It seems to be reserved for those that are "close" misses.

Personally, I announce strike three, but not ball four.

I announce both "Strike 3" and "Ball 4."

[DG]

I only use "ball" and "Striiike". Strike three will be more like "STRIIIKE" and there will be extra hand signals not normally used on the first 2 strikes. I worked with a new partner this week who called balls well outside the zone "ball", rather meekly, and ones that were close but still a ball he called "NOOO". First I have ever heard that. Each to his own.

[Carbide Keyman]

All your responses were very imformative. I personally do not verbalize each individual ball or strike except Ball four or strike three (with chainsaw action). I do announce the count after each pitch.

Again, thank you for your input.


Doug

[Edited by Carbide Keyman on Jun 8th, 2005 at 11:40 AM]

[David B]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I announce both "Strike 3" and "Ball 4."

Exactly the way I've been taught and done for years.

Thanks
David

[Blue19]

good thread.

swinging strikes - ive tried to get into this habit, but it still seems a bit cumbersome and very pointless at times, but its there for a reason...and i know theres a better way to do it, which I am still in the process of working out...
********i speak silently enough so only batter and catcher can hear "strike three, batters out". or on many easy ones I'll just say "batters out". that way, on any uncaught strike three i just say "strike three" and let them figure out the rest. a good attentive catcher will realize i didnt say "batters out" and then go make a play on batter.

on ball four, i announce ball four to get the guy out of the box and keep the game moving, otherwise you'll be standing there for minutes until they realize. such an easy thing to say to avoid having to answer the same 'ol recurring question. which is also why i give the count very frequently.