My MiLB colleague further Emailed me today, saying:

It's because you get a view of the open side of the mitt and can take a more big picture approach to the play, which is something they are advocating on all force plays (not just at first). Take big picture.

Some of what you post is slightly different from what I hear from AA an AAA MiLB umpires. Part of this can be explained by the practice in which different PBUC evaluators, from whom MiLB umpires get much of their guidance and changes, cover different leagues/levels.

What level is your colleague currently working?

Might also be a 2-man vs. 3-man difference.

Could be. I know I like going further than 90 degrees, but it really makes you need to be aware of bad throws, cause you have to adjust farther to get the tag attempt.

Ump25 is correct in everything he says based on my source. I can't speak to the AAA umps because they do what the MLB evaluators tell them, but as far as the AA umpires are concerned, they are being told by their evaluators to go a step further off the line (which would actually be a less than 90-degree angle on a throw from third or shortstop). In fact, they revised the three-man mechanics already in MiLB and I know for a fact that the PBUC evaluators who evaluate the AA guys are preaching the advantages of taking a step beyond where one would stop for the 90-degree angle.

It's amazing how the rage for years was 2SF (perhaps not at the professional level) and here's the pros saying that this adjustment is wrong (in the wrong direction).

Hmmm,
 

Rich, I think that we will always see Professional Mechanics changing.

He11, they can't even decide who should take the second call in the infield when the ball never leaves the infield. They change that mechanic every few years.

What we see is as players get not only bigger but faster that different ideas are formulated of what constitutes giving any one umpire the "best" view.

At least mechanic changes appear to be to help define a "better umpire environment" where as the constant changes in uniform appears to be just either vanity or a predescribed plan to get all the "wanna be" umpires to change uniforms every-other-year.

We can now easily see that MLB umpiring is far inferior to umpiring prior to 1999.

T

This is what I've been told as well.

I have known about the open glove advantage for a few years, but I was curious as to any other advantages that some might feel it has. I understand both camps and I am of the mind that allows me to take 98% of my plays from about two steps off the line. Both ways work as long as you know what your giving up and have excellent timing.

"A" ball if my memory serves me correctly.

No, that's Dick Honig trying to find new ways to make money. Just convince MLB to change uniforms to something that he alone makes/carries.

He's already trying to monopolize football by talking state associations into mandating his pants -- he's kicking money back to the state associations for each pair sold and he's putting a required state logo on the pants that only he has access to.

Once this started to go down, I moved most of my business to other suppliers, especially Ump Attire.

He'll most likely get away with it, too. After all, if state associations require the use of such pants, and the only way to get them is from Honig's, what's a guy to do?

I'm sure. Fortunately my state hasn't gone down this path. Till it does, I'll buy from places that don't have these monopolistic deals. That said, I did need to buy some Honig's pants for a tournament I'm working in August.

So, in the end, it looks like Estabrook was doing exactly what he should. It wasn't a bad angle, considering that no position will be perfect and this allows for a few potential plays at first. Evolution in mechanics on display.