Again the media sets it straight!

[greymule]

"Undoubtedly?" You are certain that no other factor over all those years had/has anything to do with the lengthening of games from 1903 to now?

I'll stop trying to use irony in my posts.

I would not say it is because the umpire has a 2 second delay on his strike call. This would only account for anywhere from 5 to 8 minutes extra per game, and that is negligible.

And even an umpire's delay in making a call does not mean that the next pitch is delayed by the same—or any—amount of time.

Box scores from the old days reveal a lot about the changes in the psychology of the game. Yes, pitchers were expected to complete their games if possible. Looking at the old records, you can see that Johnson, Mathewson, Dean, Hubbell, et al. were often left in when their teams had decent leads. If Dizzy Dean had a 6-1 lead after 7 innings, the Cards' manager would let him finish even if he gave up 2 or 3 runs in the 8th and 9th. Today, after 7 he'd be finished, trouble or not.

The times of the old games indicate why my dad, in 1937, could leave school, get to the Polo Grounds for a 3 o'clock game, and get home for dinner.

My dad says that fans could leave by the field exits, and minor equipment like the rosin bag was just left on the field. Nobody touched it. He also says that on the subway ride home, he'd sometimes see players. Fans would say things like, "Nice double in the eighth, Mel," and the player would thank the fan. I wonder how many players ride the NYC subway today.

[SanDiegoSteve]

So, you're saying that it really isn't anything the umpires are doing that is leading to games lasting so long, right? As long as you see that, I'll try to see the irony in your post.

[scott1231]

I went to a clinic/camp last fall, and really had my eyes opened about timing on the stick. I listened and worked hard on my timing, and felt really good this season, earning a lot of compliments from mentors/supervisors and even the rats.

My wife likes to travel with me when I work games, when she can. One day early in the season, we were headed to dinner after showering and changing. I had worked the dish, and felt really good about the game. No complaints from players or coaches ... in fact, compliments from both rats. It was the first college game she had seen me work this season, so I asked her what she thought of my new mechanic.

Her: "Well ... It's really slow."
Me: "Slow? What do you mean?"
Her: "It seemed like it took you forEVER to call a strike."
Me: "Nah, hon ... it just seems like forever."
Her: "Really. I've never seen that before. It made you look like you were hesitant, not sure of your call."
Me: "Well, kinda hesitating. I look at the pitch, retrace it quickly, quietly say "yes" to the catcher and hitter, and bang it."
Her: "It just looks stupid, you calling a strike when the ball is going back to the pitcher. Didn't anyone else complain?"
Me: "No, in fact the catchers liked it that I said 'yes' before banging it."
Her: "Well, it looks stupid, but you must have had good game. I didn't hear anyone in the stands say anything about your zone."

Okay, maybe that wasn't word-for-word, and more of a compilation of conversations we had this past season ... but you get the idea.

Did it make me aware that the perception was that our mechanic is slow? Yes.
Did I change my timing because of her perception? No.
Did I get batters running off or head-whipping? No.

I'm pretty sure it was actually my wife writing that article under a pseudonym.

The thought that, by using proper timing on ball/strike calls, we are trying to draw attention to ourselves or that we are adding to the time of the game is ridiculous.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by greymule

I wonder how many players ride the NYC subway today.

I think John Rocker took care of that option.

[greymule]

So, you're saying that it really isn't anything the umpires are doing that is leading to games lasting so long, right?

Right. I doubt that anything the umpires are doing is lengthening the games. An extra 2 minutes of TV ads after every half inning adds 36 minutes to a 9-inning game. Use of specialized relievers also adds a lot of time. The first 5 World Series saw a total of 15 relief pitchers over the 29 games, and in 27 of those games, at least one pitcher went the distance. Both went the distance in 17.

In the 2005 World Series, there were 15 relief pitchers in the third game alone (31 total in the 4 games).

[archangel]

Her: "Well ... It's really slow."
Me: "Slow? What do you mean?"
Her: "It seemed like it took you forEVER to call a strike."
Me: "Nah, hon ... it just seems like forever."
Her: "Really. I've never seen that before. It made you look like you were hesitant, not sure of your call."
Me: "Well, kinda hesitating. I look at the pitch, retrace it quickly, quietly say "yes" to the catcher and hitter, and bang it."
Her: "It just looks stupid, you calling a strike when the ball is going back to the pitcher. Didn't anyone else complain?"
Me: "No, in fact the catchers liked it that I said 'yes' before banging it."
Her: "Well, it looks stupid, but you must have had good game. I didn't hear anyone in the stands say anything about your zone."



I agree that calling balls/strikes too soon is wrong, But if you're doing your strike mechanics when the ball is on its way back to the mound- seems wayy too slow, and your wife has a point!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by scott1231

Her: "Well ... It's really slow."
Me: "Slow? What do you mean?"
Her: "It seemed like it took you forEVER to call a strike."
Me: "Nah, hon ... it just seems like forever."
Her: "Really. I've never seen that before. It made you look like you were hesitant, not sure of your call."
Me: "Well, kinda hesitating. I look at the pitch, retrace it quickly, quietly say "yes" to the catcher and hitter, and bang it."
Her: "It just looks stupid, you calling a strike when the ball is going back to the pitcher. Didn't anyone else complain?"
Me: "No, in fact the catchers liked it that I said 'yes' before banging it."
Her: "Well, it looks stupid, but you must have had good game. I didn't hear anyone in the stands say anything about your zone."

Okay, maybe that wasn't word-for-word, and more of a compilation of conversations we had this past season ... but you get the idea.

Did it make me aware that the perception was that our mechanic is slow? Yes.
Did I change my timing because of her perception? No.
Did I get batters running off or head-whipping? No.

I'm pretty sure it was actually my wife writing that article under a pseudonym.

The thought that, by using proper timing on ball/strike calls, we are trying to draw attention to ourselves or that we are adding to the time of the game is ridiculous.

Timing is proper use of the eyes...not hesitation.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Timing is proper use of the eyes...not hesitation.

It's both.


Tim.

[Tim C]

"It's both."

And I respectfully disagree.

As Evans teaches it if you track the ball correctly and then make the decision and then make the call it is a smooth process that DOES NOT INCLUDE any "hesitation."

False "hesitation" such as being dicussed in this thread is not anything to do with the timing of a correct call.

Regards,

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"It's both."

And I respectfully disagree.

As Evans teaches it if you track the ball correctly and then make the decision and then make the call it is a smooth process that DOES NOT INCLUDE any "hesitation."

False "hesitation" such as being dicussed in this thread is not anything to do with the timing of a correct call.

Regards,

Thank you, Tee...saved me many keystrokes.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"It's both."

And I respectfully disagree.

As Evans teaches it if you track the ball correctly and then make the decision and then make the call it is a smooth process that DOES NOT INCLUDE any "hesitation."

False "hesitation" such as being dicussed in this thread is not anything to do with the timing of a correct call.

Regards,

Tee,

This is as good an explanation of timing as I've ever heard... I'll be sure to use this next time a new umpire asks me what timing is. Well done!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

Tee,

This is as good an explanation of timing as I've ever heard... I'll be sure to use this next time a new umpire asks me what timing is. Well done!

It is the description used at the Academy. Tee has explained it well. Timing has nothing to do with pausing, hesitating, replaying, counting one-mississippi, whispering to the batter or catcher or straightening your cup.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Thanks a lot Garth, now I have to drop that cup straightening from my strike call. Just great.

[mbyron]

In fact, even the idea of 'timing' might be out of place. Evans's emphasis on "proper use of the eyes" is surely the right way to go, and if that's your focus, you don't need to worry about 'timing' at all. Using your eyes properly will guarantee that you do not call pitches too fast; the Philadelphia media will get on your case if you call them too slowly.

[nickrego]

We should all use the EXACT same;

• Timing
• Mechanics
• Indications
• Verbalizations
• Tone of voice
• Strike Zone
• Rules
• Mouthwash
• Cup w/Holder
• And most importantly...Everyone should wear a USH (Umpire Style Helmet) !