GD System - Foul Balls to Undesired Spots...

[TussAgee11]

I've been working GD for a year now, and its getting to the point where I'm starting to flinch back there.

Not severely flinching, but flinching in my mind. The thought of "here it comes" on an inside pitcher with the catcher on the outside corner and the batter swinging hard at the ball.

I think I've been hit more this year then my previous 2 years of calling ball behind the plate.

So, it gets to the point of, is GD worth it? Do I comprimise calling good ball with my own safety? And furthermore, does the mental flinch conflict too much with calling good ball?

I guess we all go through stretches of just getting hit alot, but its seems this year using GD I've been hit ALOT more. And in unprotected spots. And even one protected one, that still hurts alot

GD just seems to set yourself up to get hit. I don't have much muscle or fat on my body to absorb those hits. Perhaps its back to Heel-Toe for me... even though I really think I have the capability of calling better Ball from GD, I just seem to mentally flinch too much.

Anybody else who has worked GD have remedies to this problem? Nose on the corner is just getting me hit, and I'm starting to get tired of it.

Thoughts?

Tuss

[briancurtin]

i dont have these problems with GD. it works just fine for me and i like pretty much everything about it.
not everything works for everyone.

[LMan]

I don't either. I take shots from time to time but I haven't noticed any increase in impact to 'undesired spots'.

I'd say shots are more dependent on the level of ball/skill of the battery than a particular stance, but that's JMO.

I don't see how heel-toe would result in a decrease in shots over the GDS, assuming both are employed correctly.

[ozzy6900]

I don't understand the logic with the complaints of the GD stance. If F2 is going to miss the pitch or the foul ball, it doesn't matter what stance you are using - the ball is going to hit you anyway! I've been using the GD stance for a couple of years and I haven't had any problems as long as F2 can do his job! I even know several guys that do LL along with HS and they haven't complained - again - unless F2 is not doing his job!

I don't know what else to tell you!

[mbyron]

I agree. If you're in the slot, the catcher slides out, the pitch comes in, and it's fouled off (tipped? ), then chances are you're going to get hit. That's true regardless of level; what changes with level is the likelihood that the pitcher's going to miss inside so badly.

As many have intoned before me: if you don't want to get hit, stop umpiring.

[Tim C]

Having used the GDS for over five years now I get confused when people tell me they think they get hit more or more severely.

This confuses me because since making the change I have been hit four times in the mask (all by balls that were "tipped" foul) and once in the left wrist ( a deflected fast ball that came directly off F2 glove and pout me DOWN).

I guess I am a statistic waiting to happen. I recognize that I work pretty good high school level games behind pretty good high school catchers -- maybe at lower level you ARE MORE EXPOSED. I just don't have an imperical data to prove that.

I have written a column on the paid side of this site and also authored a thread on this site about my concerns and the possibility of going back to the text book pro school stance but that decision is on hold.

For the uneducated that think you can't see the outside corner, or can't see the low pitch, or that GDS leads to the calling of higher strikes I suggest that you try the stance for a minimum of 10 plate jobs (after having been taught the stance just not read about it) and see that the view of pitches is different (not better or worse, just different) and is an accepted stance at the MLB level.

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I guess I am a statistic waiting to happen. I recognize that I work pretty good high school level games behind pretty good high school catchers -- maybe at lower level you ARE MORE EXPOSED. I just don't have an imperical data to prove that.

I have noticed that in "pretty good high school" games that the catchers actually exhibit a little skill, and don't allow many pitches to hit the umpire untouched. The GDS serves me well when working these types of contests.

After my past year's sojourn into the depths of youth baseball, I can tell you that I was forced to abandon the GDS in these types of games, because many catchers at lower levels routinely allow baseballs to pass their gloves. The most common places to be hit in these games are in the stomach below the bottom of the chest protector, and the hands/wrists/forearms area which seem to be just sitting ducks for errant pitches.

Mysteriously, the ball seemed to avoid all the expensive gear that I had on, and only managed to find flesh and bone.

[3appleshigh]

I am 6' 3" just shy of 300lbs. I have worked the GD stance for three years from 10yr olds to 20yr olds. I see no major difference in the number or severity of being hit by the ball. I have seen a shift in location the vast majority now are on the legs and feet, like that matters, with the odd, chest or shoulder and a couple in the arms over the three years. When I was doing the heel/toe, I took a minimum of 4 to the arms a year, These are the ones that hurt. This year I took a foul of the Quad then three games later a staight fast ball in the exact same spot and had a 7" circle bruise on my leg for a week or two, still able to work games though. This is the worst (knock on wood) I have take since switching. Before I would spend at least a few days with a numb arm. I'll take that trade anyday.

[DG]

My worst hits since adopting the GD system have all been from behind college age catchers on pitches they did not get a glove on. It could have happened in heel to toe just as easily, ie sorry catchers. I have not been hurt seriously in a high school game. I am locked in better though with GD so it's not a tradeoff. Sorry catchers will hurt you either way.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by DG

My worst hits since adopting the GD system have all been from behind college age catchers on pitches they did not get a glove on.

agreed. ive posted my story enough times, but overall, taking untouched fastballs at that level sucks.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

agreed. ive posted my story enough times, but overall, taking untouched fastballs at that level sucks.

I still fail to understand the problem! If F2 misses the ball you are going to get hit no matter where you stand! I would also think that the closer you stand to F2, the better the chances that you will get hit harder and in a bad spot. With the GDS, because you set up around 4 feet back, the ball should be dropping by the time it gets to you.

That is, unless F1 is throwing a rising fastball!

[TussAgee11]

Closer, to the catcher, more of you is protected. Also, you typically work lower the closer you are to the catcher, which hides more of your body, just scrunching over.

Working GD leaves you very high, and very open, from what I can see/tell/reason.

[RPatrino]

Being closer only protects you if your desire is to hide behind the catcher. Working lower only protects you if your desire is to hide behind the catcher. In both cases, you are sacrificing a better view of the strike zone for your own safety. I suppose that is a valuable trade off for lower level ball, and using the above techniques assures that you will stay at that level.

As mentioned numerous times, and in many threads, there is no statistical validity to the argument that you will be hit more using the GD, than using any other method behind the plate.

[TussAgee11]

RPatino -

This is true - there is no proven study either way. I said so in my post, albeit indirectly. I said that my theory is just based off what I can see/tell/reason.

Furthermore, you say working lower gives you a worse look at the zone. That is your experience. Umpires for a long long time worked low, knee low. Are people like Tim Mc. not a good umpire?

I can remember playing not too long ago and having umpires which worked from knees, and I was happy when I saw they'd be calling my game because I knew they'd be good.

If working low for you obstructs your view, then fine, it doesn't work for you. Don't say it doesn't work for all umpires.

You can work close and low and get the same angle on the zone as you can working back and high.

People swear by their own way of umpiring, their own stance and adaptations as "working", and anybody else's as "not working". Your post is an example of that.

[RPatrino]

Tuss, I guess it all depends on how LOW you GO!!

When I hear someone is working low, I have an image of your head being right next to the catcher's. There is NO physical way for you to see the outside part of the zone, because the catchers head blocks your view.

Tim Mc. does not work this low, he works MLB, and more or less does not call anything above the belt a strike.

So, I guess the question is, how low is LOW?