Recieving Low Strike

That is a fair method of judging low pitches with a decent catcher. In lower levels it isn't possible. But even with a good catcher you can only allow a certain amount of thumbing. Low is still low, Thumbing only counts on a borderline pitch.

I agree with Michael, but I also like to ring up that pitch with the top of the ball at the hollow of the knee. I often hear chirps that it's low, but it isn't low. It's also a very hittable pitch. The way some catchers lose that pitch is by setting up too far back from the plate and catching the ball with a bent arm - makes it look lower than it is, especially a breaking ball.

Thumbing? What do you mean? Should I instruct my catchers to only catch the borderline pitch palm down or can they recieve it palm up?

Flintoide,

palm down/fingers up...never palm up unless the catcher is blocking something in the dirt; you just won't get the low strike call with palm up. Try to keep as much of the glove in the strike zone as possible. Learning good receiving skills sets good catchers apart from others.

Alot depends on the age/experience level of the catcher. 7-8 yr old catcher..be happy if he just catches it instead of picking it up at the backstop.

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Flintoide,

palm down/fingers up...never palm up unless the catcher is blocking something in the dirt; you just won't get the low strike call with palm up.

Yup. Also, when they catch it palm up, they will invariably pull the glove up too. Makes it even easier to ball the pitch.

The term "thumbing" means to to catch a low pitch with the glove in the thumb down position and pull the ball to the mit with the lower part of the glove. This takes some skill and strength to do and isn't possible by younger catchers. This is why I say the lower the level the less likely you can use this as a measure.
Another thing that works is use the catcher's knee. If it's below his knee when he is in the proper depth behind the plate, then it's a ball.
A good ump is watching the ball all the way to the glove and can tell if the catcher is pulling pitches or catching and sticking them.

I was under the impression that a pitch was to be called where it crossed the plate not where the catcher catches it---the pitch can cross the plate above the knees and be caught below the knee level by the catcher.Isnt that a strike?

It's a guide not an absolute. If it's a fastball then where he catches it is very close to where it went over the plate. If it's a breaking ball then if it's at the catcher's knee then it probably went through the zone. As I say the ump is watching the ball all the way to the glove but because of the way our eyes work you don't really get a continuous look all the way. Therefore you have to use any other data you can get to help. If you use the glove completely you will miss many pitches.

And you wonder why I argue with umpires

"probably went thru the strike zone" --what is that to mean ?

If an umpire ever tells me during a game that he calls pitches based on where the catchers glove is when he catches the ball there will be a major problem---I would play the game under protest and ask to see the Guy in charge of umpires immedialtely

It is bad enough we see guys who decide to do their own thing when a team is up by a deciding margin.

We had a ump last year tell our kids , we were up by a bunch, after he called strike three that "the pitch was a ball but you guys are up by so much you are on on a called strike three". Need I tell you that I went ballistic--at that point we had our nonstarters in and I want them to get quality at bats not have an idiot umpire play head games with them


great term "Probably"---I cant believe you posted that

By the way "guides" are for fishing and hunting trips


Guide dogs for umpires I can understand but not guides

TR - I don't blame you one bit for being ****ed off at the umpire who made calls based on the score. That is hor$e$hit umpiring.

In Michael's defense, I don't think he was saying he calls pitches based on where F2 catches the pitch. Observing the position of the catch is all part of the "pause, read & react" that accompanies every pitch. We are looking for evidence that a part of the ball entered the strike zone, and that evidence is not necessarily limited to tracking the ball. For example, if my initial thought was a breaking ball broke around the plate (ball), but F2 caught the pitch belt high dead centered on the plate, I'm going to ring it up, because the subsequent evidence convinced me my tracking missed a strike. Or what about the situation where F2 sets up inside, and F1 completely misses the target and throws one that might have nicked the outside corner, but it deflects of the web of F2's glove and goes back to the screen. Do you honestly expect to get that pitch?

BTW - I was GCHS class of '67. Do I know you?

dash

I care not whether it goes off the catchers glove or not---the call is to be on where it crosses the plate not where the catchers glove is

We play in areas where the umpire is situated so far behind the catcher to start with he needs a telescope to see the pitcher---he cannot make a true strike /ball call if he tries because of where he stands

As for GCHS I came out in '59 but I have had sisters and brothers and nephews and nieces there since

Drop me a PM--might know each others families

TR
The reason I said probably went through the zone is because there are more things involved in calling a strike besides the height. It could have been in or out. It could have been a strange loopy curve that came in high . If you read my last sentence I said if you use ONLY the glove you will miss many pitches. It is one piece of the puzzle used at varsity and above baseball.
The calling of strikes in a lopsided game is stupid and unfair to your players. Ask any good ump and they will tell you some of the hardest games to call are the ones where the score is one-sided or neither team has very much talent. These are games where your attention will wander and strange plays happen and blows up all of a sudden.