Gerry Davis stance

[briancurtin]

Originally posted by DG
I recall getting hit in the face mask one time this year with a fast ball in a 4A varsity HS game. It was not a foul ball, but the catcher did not get a glove on it. I tracked it right from the pitcher's hand to my mask, as I was locked in the GD. The mask leaped off my head and landed at my feet and I looked at the catcher and said "is that the best you can do?".

similar thing happened to me, except it was a college game last fall and i took an upper 80s fastball to the left bicep. i was locked in, ball came up and in, and F2 didnt get back over in time to catch it (he was setup way way outside). that felt great...

[ChapJim]

Originally posted by DG
I just saw Joe West get hit in the head by a bat on a backswing. I don't think that would happen with GD system because PU would be farther back.

I don't worry about getting hit.

You don't have to worry about calling umpire's interference on yourself either.

[DG]

The balanced vs. heel to toe discussion left me wondering what I do, in a game. When I stand in front of a mirror I am balanced, but I was not sure if this would carry over to a game. So tonight I had 2 games behind the plate and checked my feet out a number of times during the game. With RH batters I was consistently working instep (left foot) to toe (right foot), so I guess you can say I was "in-between" heel to toe and balanced. On LH batters I was working balanced.

[nickrego]

I switched over to the GD Stance last year. I feel it is the best stance for all the reasons that have been stated.

Just think, an umpire using the GD Stance, wearing a Helmet ! You just can't get a better umpire !

(Just trying to get a few goats, and I know I did.)

[mbyron]

Originally posted by nickrego
(Just trying to get a few goats, and I know I did.)

You can't get goats with self-parody.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by RPatrino

As for UmpAndy getting hit by foul balls, its not because of being too far back. There are more than likely mechanical reasons, and a good evaluator, partner or clinic instructor will find out and fix it. I have found since using the GD System, I DO NOT GET HIT, period! Probably twice in 4 years. This is probably because I am doing higher level ball, but also because I am not moving around so much.

Sorry for the long post, but this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

Bob P.

You are definitely in greater risk of getting hit the GD stance, notwithstanding that you have NOT been hit. That's more luck than any direct correlation to the fact that you're using the GD stance.

And, the fact that you're calling higher ball suggests the risk of getting hit rests largely on the chance that the catcher will miss the ball.

In that regard, the GD stance is no more risky than any other stance. If the catcher can't catch, you're going to get hit - true.

But the GD stance increases the cone at which you are liable to be hit by a tipped pitched. There can be no question about that. It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree.

I think the GD stance *does* increase the accuracy of calls, but at the price of taking more foul tips off the body.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Tim C]

"It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree."

Rather than taking cheap shots at you being a rat posting umpire information I will challenge this statement from your post.

Please explain to me were the "higher degree" comes from.

My version of Mythbusters would call "foul" on your generalization.

When I work the old heel-to-instep (consider we are talking about a RH hitter) I am in the slot. My right hand and arm are behind the catcher and my left arm is placed in front of my stomach just above my left knee.

When I work the GDS I am still in the slot and my right hand and arm are still behind the catcher. Since the catcher is still in front of me a ball would have to come off the bat and immediately go downward after passing the catcher (an impossibility) or it would have to go under the catcher and up and catch my arm after a bounce.

This means that my right arm is equally exposed in either stance.

Now in the Davis my left arm and hand, rather than horizontal, are nearly vertical. The same exact amount of arm is exposed and my hand slides effortlessly into the gap at the top of my leg guard.

Picture that my arms are not ridgid, my thumb is on the right side of my leg guard and my other four fingers are on the left side of the guard.

Since my leg guard is pointed squarely at the pitcher this means that my hands has little or no exposure to a pitch, deflected ball or foul BALL.

I don't understand your "cone" reference as the only "cone" I know of is the "Cone of Silence" from Get Smart.

I do not remember you posting that you worked the Davis Stance when you were posing as an umpire so I don't know how many games you have worked in the system.

All I can say, for about the thousandth time, I have worked the stance since late 1999 early 2000 through this last year and have been hit ONCE.

I'll stick with my research on this one.

Tee

[DG]

I exprimented with GD for a couple years before going to it full time early this year, after getting a finger broken on my left hand. I did not feel it would be a good idea to get hit again while wearing a splint to straighten my finger out while the bone healed. In the GD my fingers are not exposed. I will never go back to my old stance because 1) not as likely to break a finger and 2) I love the look I get at the pitch.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Tim C
"It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree."

Rather than taking cheap shots at you being a rat posting umpire information I will challenge this statement from your post.

Please explain to me were the "higher degree" comes from.

My version of Mythbusters would call "foul" on your generalization.

When I work the old heel-to-instep (consider we are talking about a RH hitter) I am in the slot. My right hand and arm are behind the catcher and my left arm is placed in front of my stomach just above my left knee.

When I work the GDS I am still in the slot and my right hand and arm are still behind the catcher. Since the catcher is still in front of me a ball would have to come off the bat and immediately go downward after passing the catcher (an impossibility) or it would have to go under the catcher and up and catch my arm after a bounce.

This means that my right arm is equally exposed in either stance.

Now in the Davis my left arm and hand, rather than horizontal, are nearly vertical. The same exact amount of arm is exposed and my hand slides effortlessly into the gap at the top of my leg guard.

Picture that my arms are not ridgid, my thumb is on the right side of my leg guard and my other four fingers are on the left side of the guard.

Since my leg guard is pointed squarely at the pitcher this means that my hands has little or no exposure to a pitch, deflected ball or foul BALL.

I don't understand your "cone" reference as the only "cone" I know of is the "Cone of Silence" from Get Smart.

I do not remember you posting that you worked the Davis Stance when you were posing as an umpire so I don't know how many games you have worked in the system.

All I can say, for about the thousandth time, I have worked the stance since late 1999 early 2000 through this last year and have been hit ONCE.

I'll stick with my research on this one.

Tee

No matter what stance you use, the arm/hand that is behind the catcher (assuming you are working a slot) is almost completely immune from being hit. It always seems the *other* arm/hand takes the shots.

Since an integral part of the GD stance is to lock yourself in with your hands as a support, there is no good place to put that exposed hand. In other stances, many umpires find places to put that hand, like behind the knee.

Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.

Let's face it, getting struck with a pitched ball off the bat is a relatively rare occurrence and it happens with such infrequency that it is difficult to attribute WHY one umpire might get hit more than another other than an inordinate amount of bad luck. So, if a GD stance umpire gets hit less than an umpire employing a different stance, that is hardly a conclusive database. It may be just one umpire is simply unlucky. Hell, why does one person get hit by lightning and another doesn't?

Having said this, I think the GD stance is probably superior to other stances. I particularly think a GD stance umpire gets a much better view of the low pitch that, in my opinion, is the mostly commonly missed pitch by umpires. I think many umpires tend to call a strike on a pitch that cuts the plate in two, but is on the low side, too often. And I think they miss that because they are TOO CLOSE to the pitch.



I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)

I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM]

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG
I just saw Joe West get hit in the head by a bat on a backswing. I don't think that would happen with GD system because PU would be farther back.

I don't worry about getting hit. It's part of the job, and mostly unavoidable. I recall getting hit in the face mask one time this year with a fast ball in a 4A varsity HS game. It was not a foul ball, but the catcher did not get a glove on it. I tracked it right from the pitcher's hand to my mask, as I was locked in the GD. The mask leaped off my head and landed at my feet and I looked at the catcher and said "is that the best you can do?".

I also suffered my first broken bone this year, a broken pinky finger on my left hand. It was in the first inning of the first game of a college double header. Inside pitch the catcher did not get a glove on. This was in February before I had fully converted to GD.

I don't think I get hit any more or less in GD system than before. But I also don't worry about getting hit any more or less.

I think you have the absolute right view of all this. Although I maintain that statistically, as a function of physics, you more prone to get hit in the GD stance, I do *not* think that should be an overriding concern since it would still be too infrequent to be an issue.

Like you, I believe getting hit by a pitch, on occassion, is simply part of the job. If an umpire compromises on the quality of his ball/strike calling based on his fear of getting hit with the ball, he should probably not even be umpiring.

Probably the biggest problem with the GD stance is this ...

If you are in a league where you are subject to evaluations and your evaluator does not understand or appreciate the GD stance, it will stunt your advancement. Also, many managers and fans will recognize the unorthodox style as "weak" umpiring.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about how much improved you are with calling balls and strikes, but it may well fall on deaf ears.

David Emerling
Memphis, Tn

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by David Emerling

Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.

David,
It's the other way around. We're interested in the fraction of balls which will strike an umpire. The balls have the same angular distribution no matter where blue stands. But he subtends a smaller angle as he stands farther from the plate. And that smaller solid angle means that he intercepts fewer foul balls. The situation is complicated slightly by the shrouding effect of the catcher, and I suppose that a GD stance umpire who works very high might take more impacts to the mask or helmet.
BTW, Anybody else notice a correlation between use of helmets and use of the GD stance?
Dave

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.



I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)

I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM]

David --

I think your physics is completely backwards. The forward umpire occupies, say, 100% of the cone -- he's guaranteed to get hit. An umpire standing at, say, the screen, might occupy 10% of the cone -- he's unlikely to get hit.

[RPatrino]

I appreciate your "scientific" approach David, but the real "evidence" really should come from those who actually use the system. I have used the GD for about the same amount of time as Tee, with very similar results. I have been hit only ONCE on the hands or arms since 2000. I am still hit occasionally on the mask or chest protector, which happens regardless of stance or technique used.

Before GD I used any number of stances and was hit on the arms or hands, on average, once a week or more. I guess you would say I was "in the cone". I say the "cone of pain". Even Bill Nye the Science Guy would agree that was compelling evidence.

My evidence suggest that I never again return to the cone of pain, thanks for your input, but I'm staying GD.

BP

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by RPatrino
I appreciate your "scientific" approach David, but the real "evidence" really should come from those who actually use the system. I have used the GD for about the same amount of time as Tee, with very similar results. I have been hit only ONCE on the hands or arms since 2000. I am still hit occasionally on the mask or chest protector, which happens regardless of stance or technique used.

Before GD I used any number of stances and was hit on the arms or hands, on average, once a week or more. I guess you would say I was "in the cone". I say the "cone of pain". Even Bill Nye the Science Guy would agree that was compelling evidence.

My evidence suggest that I never again return to the cone of pain, thanks for your input, but I'm staying GD.

BP

My point was never to emphasize that the GD stance should not be used because of the enhanced chances of getting hit. In fact, I think the huge gain in accuracy of calling balls & strikes far outweighs the miniscule increase in the chance of being hit due to the more erect posture associated with the GD stance.

I experimented with the GD stance only once and liked it very much. What I *didn't* like was some of the comments I could hear from fans noticing and murmuring about how far back I was standing. It was a very low level game - just a bunch of 13-yr-olds so I really didn't care.

I didn't get hit once while in the GD stance. But, on the other hand, I don't ever recall getting whacked at all that season. So I'm not sure what kind of database that provides.

Listen, I don't want to argue the point. It's really rather pointless, in my opinion. But it just seems that whenever discussions of the GD stance come up, somebody always seems to mention that it's "safer" or "more dangerous" or something along these lines. I was just pointing out that a more erect stance is going to provide a larger target and subtend a larger "cone" thus, statistically, increasing your odds of getting hit. Whether those statistics play out for any one individual is hard to say or predict.

If you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads each time would you conclude that you had a 2-headed coin?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 10:00 PM]

[David Emerling]

Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.



I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)

I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM] [/QUOTE]

David --

I think your physics is completely backwards. The forward umpire occupies, say, 100% of the cone -- he's guaranteed to get hit. An umpire standing at, say, the screen, might occupy 10% of the cone -- he's unlikely to get hit. [/B][/QUOTE]

The illustration was only to explain to Tee what I even meant by "the cone", nothing more.

I'll agree that the further back you stand you subtend less of "the cone". That part is obvious especially if you consider an umpire standing 50-feet behind the catcher. Clearly, he would have an extremely remote chance of getting hit.

The problem is that with the GD stance, the umpire is only slightly further back than the more conventional stances yet postures himself MUCH more erect. It's that erect stance, in my opinion, that catches more of "the cone." I probably didn't word it very well in my original post.

The picture above has the two umpires (one just being a clone of the other) using identical stances. I'll agree that two umpires, using identical stances, the one furthest from the ball has a lower probability of being hit *PROVIDED* all other things are equal as far as the frontal area of exposure remaining constant which is *NOT* the case for the GD stance. There's a reason everybody says it's easier on the back - it's because you're not squatting as much.

Like I said, I don't think it's a big issue. I just think it's true from a physics standpoint. I wouldn't discourage anybody from using the GD stance on this basis.

I was just bored and wanted to play Bill Nye the Science Guy. :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN