Question for Plate guys

[jkumpire]

Guys in my area must have a communicable disease these days, since everyone from College on down has at least two or three kids who are right on top of the plate.

I have no slot at all to work with on these guys, and it is frustrating. then F2 sets up for an inside corner pitch, and I'm looking over F2's head or through BR's hands.

How do you guys deal with the problem? I will use a Davis stance, but I am old school and I prefer heel/toe in the slot. Does anyone else have this problem where you work?

[BigUmp56]

I think we've all been in this situation many times. The best advice I can give you that, works for me, is to move up and back when a catcher takes away your view from the slot.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

jkumpire,

I concur with Tim. "Up and back" when you get "squeezed" out of the slot working H-T-H-T. Try it. You'll like it.

JM

[Steven Tyler]

By up and back, you mean higher and further back right?

[UmpJM]

Steven,

Zackly!

JM

[bobbybanaduck]

open question, not just for the OP...is your definition of the slot the same as the umpire school definition of the slot?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

By up and back, you mean higher and further back right?

Yea, and it usually won't be huge adjustment that you'll have to make.


Tim.

[Rags 11]

bobbybanaduck

open question, not just for the OP...is your definition of the slot the same as the umpire school definition of the slot?

BBD:

Slot: The area between the batter and the catcher. The entire plate (outside corner) should be visible. PU's head height shouldn't dip below F2's head.

That being said, since the Academy may one day be my mid-life crisis indulgence, I'd like to hear the pro school version.

Thanks,
AR

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Poosey

I am generous to the inside pitch.

How much so?

Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It was non-descriptive, vague and generally evasive in nature.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Poosey

I am generous to the inside pitch.

This is generally a good idea.

Too many umpires (imo) describe their strike zone as something like "I give nothing in the inside, but 2 balls on the outside." This leads to batters crowdng the plate and more hit batters (on which the umpire must decide if teh batter is "getting out of the way.").

Instead, make the zone 1 ball inside and 1 ball outside (or so). It's the same width, but you'll have fewer problems.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Poosey

Do you mean one extra ball wide or one ball wide being the one that crosses the black?

Either. Whatever "your" zone is, it should be the same inside and outside, imo.

[L.A. Umpire Guy]

I hear the comment after most games: "You were really consistent today, Blue."

And sometimes that comment is made by someone who early in the game said, "You're squeezing us, Blue."

My favorite comment I ever had was from a former pro catcher in the wood bat league: "It was the easiest four at bats I ever had in a game. I was sure what a strike was and what a ball was because your zone never changed all day."

I guess that when I go reaching for a strike (which is rare), I don't know where to stop, so I just don't reach very often. So the only time there's any daylight on a strike I give, it always seems to be a sharp breaking ball that finished right, and it is always an inch or two outside and never inside. It's also always up a little above the knee or better. If it's on the corner, I don't care how it's caught, but if it's an inch or two off, then it has to be caught right. I just feel like a pitch ever-so-slightly off the outside corner is very hittable, but the one off the inside is a foul ball off the foot. I'm a hitting guy and a pitching guy, but I'm more of a hitting guy.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Poosey

I find two balls wide (one a strike by the book, the second not) about 1/2 ball too much, ymmv.

Fine. But the thread / my posts were about symmetry, not absolute width.