What you are using is very close to what I like to use.

I call a variation of the GD, Ive seen a couple of MLB guys using it and I liked their zones.

so I tried it through a summer and loved it.

In the slot, but a wide stance (gets me lower), and at least an arms length or more behind F2.

Great view of all the pitches, and as you stated, when i get blocked by F2 I can always just go a little higher in the stance!

Keep up the good work, its always a work in progress.

Thanks
David

Coach,

I think (but not positive) that you're getting a lot of comments about the GD stance because both of your hands are on your legs and your head is pretty high. Most (but not all) guys working the heel/toe (which we called the "box" at the Brinkman school...but I know that others consider the box to be setting up directly behind the catcher which was used way back when) don't place both arms on their legs. Also, most heel/toe guys have a lower head height than guys using the GD (and they get lower than where you are). Your chin should be at the same height as the top of the catcher's helmet.

Here is a picture of a guy in a heel/toe with good head height (also notice how he's resting his arms to allow him to get that low):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/openisf...7594187042199/

Good luck!

Lawup, that is a good representation of the 'box'. The problems I see with the traditional approach vs the GD is:

1) Consistant head height
2) Head movement
3) Rock solid 'lock in'
4) Weak slot alignment

The GD cures these, and it is by far the easiest to teach, learn and use on a day to day basis. In my opinion, you call strikes that you can't even see in the other plate stances.

John, you are just about 2 steps away from using the GD. Why not go for it ??

People are commenting on the GD stance because of the height of your stance, the distance from the catcher and your hand position. None of these are what Jim taught when I went to Arizona.

If you are trying to recreate your DC plate stance, get your cage viedo out. I'm sure you'll see your legs were spread wider, the slot foot was ahead of the back foot, you were lower through both a wider stance and more "sitting" (not with any more lean), you were a bit closer to the catcher and you did not have your slot hand on your knee.

Wow. I have never heard these issues blamed on a hee/toe stance before. Sound more like inexperience than anything inherent with a stance.

I've gone back from GD to hee/toe...actually heel/instep as the Evans' instructors permitted on the last day...and have never been as solid behind the plate. I use a good lock-in with my non slot hand, my alignment in the slot does not vary, even with catchers who move out, I can see the outside corner very well without moving my head and by using the three steps to get into my stance, my head height does not vary during a game.

If you experience these problems with heel/toe, I'd suggest it has little to do with the stance itself and much to do with the execution.

Garth, you are correct when you state that these problems are evidence of inexperience rather then related to a particular plate stance. I was not blaming the H/T for these problems, just stating from my observations, the problems that do occur frequently for those who do not use the GD.

While number 4 in my list can't be directly cured by the GD, the other 3 certainly are. I began teaching the GD when I was the UIC of my association and in charge of training very young and very inexperieced umpires. They were taught the H/T and many just didn't grasp it. They didn't have the intense instruction that the DC or other professional camps give.

Those problems can arise in any stance. GD, by itself, cures nothing. I've seen worse in some misusing the GD stance.

The key is proper instruction and proper execution of either stance. If you feel more comfortable teaching the GD stance, that's fine.

JM-

Go with slot arm across your waist/stomach and your other hand tucked to the side grabbing the back/side of your knee.