2SF or 90 to throw
 

BOS-BAL bottom 5. Andino drops bunt down 3B line. F5 fields it about 30 feet from the plate and throws to 1B for the out. U1 Wally Bell calls it from a casual two steps fair. I would have been 90 to the throw. What does he know that I don't know? (regarding this mechanic - I don't want to leave myself wide open with that question).

He is a big leaguer. We aren't. That's all he knows in regard to that play.

Pro schools will teach to get to 90 degrees(i.e. in the baseline between 1st and 2nd) on balls within the imaginary box (3 of the corners being home plate, the 45 foot line starting point, and the imaginary 45 foot line up the 3rd base line).

Many guys in MLB also will take this play just 2 steps fair. Downside, can't see the receiving side of the glove. Upside, you see the pulled foot, get a bigger picture, and can ensure you are stationary for the play.

With the throw coming from the box the pulled foot angle should be better from the 90. But instincts sometimes trump mechanics. I think I've seen a few perfect ( by the current MLB standards which are a little further away than I'm used to at 1B) mechanics have the wrong results. I still have to use what Jim Evans teaches.

F3 (or whoever is covering 1st) is going to be stepping towards 2nd to catch this ball. The throw, if it is to pull the fielder off, is most likely going to be either high or towards 2nd.

Standing in the baseline is not the best angle for this, as the fielder's body is in between you and the bag.

That being said, this is where Evans (and I believe Wendlestadt) and PBUC (at least initially) want their umpires in the 2 umpire system. I can not speak to what they may prefer with 3 or 4 umpires, as you no longer have to worry about staying ahead of the play into 2nd should the play advance in that direction.

Either is fine for 95% of the plays.

One or the other is correct on the remaining 5%, and the play can go from one eing correct to the other being correct in the blink of an eye. A good read can help you adjust some, but it might not be enough.

I personally prefer 2SF for most of the calls.

I see many umpire going more than 90* -- that is, even on a throw from F6 moving to his left, they get almost in the baseline from 1st to 2nd.

A little birdie told me this is being taught -- get the 90 and then take a couple more steps.

That birdie gets around. Apparently from Florida, to Wisconsin, to Ohio, at the least. Probably upstate NY, too.

Not much, probably.

Lots of times, accepted mechanics are nothing more than the flavor of the month. I was using what is very close to the Davis stance for years and getting ripped for it in evaluations before it came into vogue. Same with 2SF. Still get ripped for standing set instead of HOK on the bases, but in a few years somebody who likes it will be in a position of power, and then that will be OK, too. The NCAA has decided to use a mechanic my long-time partners and I have used for awhile, too: In 3-man, the umpire on the line--whether on the open side of the batter or not--gets a better look at whether a batter went around than the umpire in the middle. Not that the guy in the middle can't tell; only that the guy on the wing can tell better.

If you're comfortable and getting your calls correct on that play at 90, that's where you belong. Slavish adherence to standard mechanics can--and does--diminish individual performance.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | BOS@BAL: Ellsbury awarded first after umpire review - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

90 might have worked better here. Damed if you do and dammed if you don't.

That's a lot more than 2SF, so it certainly can't be used as an argument against it.

Sure, but do you think 2SF would have helped him here?

I think he would still have been screened from the bobble.

Tim.

Agree. F3's chest is completely facing the plate, plus the throw was on his left side. PU is the only one who has a good look at this.

Congrats to the crew for getting this right.

Yep.