Would you please just call the strike zone in the book?

quote:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

Okay, I'll play your game, how much do YOU change that rule, do you call it a strike, but you don't call the batter out? If you don't call the batter out, would you still call it a strike?

Same thing if a guy ducks to "save his life" but the ball hits his bat and pops up in the air and is caught, do YOU call the batter out or would you give him a do over since he was ducking to "save his live". You know darn good and well if you dind't call the guy out you'd have a riot on your hands. Call according to the rules and you a$$ is covered. It stinks for the batter, but that's the way it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

Okay, I'll play your game, how much do YOU change that rule, do you call it a strike, but you don't call the batter out? If you don't call the batter out, would you still call it a strike?

Same thing if a guy ducks to "save his life" but the ball hits his bat and pops up in the air and is caught, do YOU call the batter out or would you give him a do over since he was ducking to "save his live". You know darn good and well if you dind't call the guy out you'd have a riot on your hands. Call according to the rules and you a$$ is covered. It stinks for the batter, but that's the way it goes.

Just so I underdstand you correctly - are you calling the batter out (for hitting the ball out of the box) in the first scenario?

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

Okay, I'll play your game, how much do YOU change that rule, do you call it a strike, but you don't call the batter out? If you don't call the batter out, would you still call it a strike?

Same thing if a guy ducks to "save his life" but the ball hits his bat and pops up in the air and is caught, do YOU call the batter out or would you give him a do over since he was ducking to "save his live". You know darn good and well if you dind't call the guy out you'd have a riot on your hands. Call according to the rules and you a$$ is covered. It stinks for the batter, but that's the way it goes.

Just so I underdstand you correctly - are you calling the batter out (for hitting the ball out of the box) in the first scenario?

Rule 6.06
54
6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when— (a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box. Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter’s feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter’s box and hit the ball.

I am utterly speechless. Never mind.

Dash - the expanded strike zone affects an average of 250 pitches a game. The scenario you responded with may occur once every ten years and no reasonable person would question - which btw is a judgment call regarding the position of his feet.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I am utterly speechless. Never mind.

I didn't write the rule and as long as I've umpired I've never seen a guy duck to avoid being hit and the ball hit his bat, that wasn't called a strike. EVER. You also never said what you would do in that instance. Did you call the pitch a strike since it hit the batters bat and went foul? If so how can you not call the batter out, to me it's an all or nothing call.

I noticed you didn't bother to answer MY question, what if the ball hits the bat, and is popped up and caught? What would you call? There is NO provision in the rules for someone avoiding an errant pitch and the ball hitting his bat. There is reference to someone moving out of the way of a pitch and stepping out of the box, but that refers to calling a strike on the batter, and says nothing regarding the batter hitting the ball, intentional or otherwise.

Rules say if he hits the ball with one or both feet out of the box, he's OUT. I never said I agreed with that rule, I said if you call it by the rules you avoid a bunch of "what if?" garbage.

Now answer my question, that is if you have regained your power of speech.

A) Foul
B) Out

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
A) Foul
B) Out

Why?

If the 2nd guy is subject to being put out by rule, so should the 1st. Unless you can provide something that backs your logic, because it darn sure isnt' the rules, I have to disagree with your call. Again, it's sucks for the batter, but the rule does not draw a line between intentionally hitting the ball or hitting it while running for you life, excuse me "ducking" for you life.

Because those are the correct calls.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Because those are the correct calls.

Dash, can you please provide me the rule which states if a batter, while in the act of avoiding being hit by a pitch, steps out of the batters box, and hits the ball he's not out. That call is not a judgement call, if you KNOW the batter was out of the box, when the ball was hit, he's out.

Why is the guy that pops the ball up and it's caught out? Why doesn't he have the same protection that your giving the guy, who by blind luck, didn't pop the ball up, because according to YOUR logic, the call is all based off of the batters reaction to a bad pitch and his intention (avoid getting hit) and not based off of the results of the batters action.

quote:

to me it's an all or nothing call.

To any umpire above youth ball, this call is foul ball........all day every day......


Given your above statement, I dont expect you to understand........there is so much in baseball and in umpiring that just cant fit in to the "all or nothing" call.....

Just as an example.....There are 30 balk actions.....if you call more than 6 of them you will be crucified by coaches.....they are all balks........yet 23 or so of them are almost universally ignored below the MLB level....

Then there are the numerous rules that are meant to be enforced....

No NFHS game can be played without 3 New NFHS approved game balls........well, I umpired that game with 3 PONY league balls that I donated since neither team had any new balls on them......against the rules absolutely.........but we play on........had I forfeted the game as per the rules Id be crucified.....

A while back in college, the coaches were told to wear a full baseball uniform.......and it was stated that no coach could wear a pullover without a uniform top on underneath.......what do I care if he had a jersey on?.........he isnt going to play........

I know this started out as a "strike zone" thread....but all or nothing does not fit into the real world of HS and college umpiring..........

PIAA, fine, you explain to me under YOUR and his scenerio, why the 2nd batter is out? Why don't you extend him the same protection?

Hiding behind "you're just a youth umpire so you wouldn't know better" may make you feel superior, but it doesn't make you right. So again if the 1st batter only gets a strike, why is the 2nd batter out?

The direction this thread is headed reminds me why we teach umpires not to get into discussions with fans.

Aside from that being poor game management, umpires, particularly those with professional training, are taught to understand things differently than how coaches and fans see things. We don't even use the same vocabulary at times,

Whenever one of our umpires "gets into trouble" with a coach or a fan and I hear about, my first words to the umpire are "STFU and umpire the game."

You will never win an argument with a fan.

quote:

No NFHS game can be played without 3 New NFHS approved game balls........well, I umpired that game with 3 PONY league balls that I donated since neither team had any new balls on them......against the rules absolutely.........but we play on........had I forfeted the game as per the rules Id be crucified.....

A while back in college, the coaches were told to wear a full baseball uniform.......and it was stated that no coach could wear a pullover without a uniform top on underneath.......what do I care if he had a jersey on?.........he isnt going to play........

Those two rules have no effect on the physical part of the game, the scenerio we are talking about does.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The direction this thread is headed reminds me why we teach umpires not to get into discussions with fans.

Aside from that being poor game management, umpires, particularly those with professional training, are taught to understand things differently than how coaches and fans see things. We don't even use the same vocabulary at times,

Whenever one of our umpires "gets into trouble" with a coach or a fan and I hear about, my first words to the umpire are "STFU and umpire the game."

You will never win an argument with a fan.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm asking legit question, why do you protect one batter and not the other?

I do umpire, and I am a fan. I didn't take this conversation in this direction, I'm just asking questions based off a scenerio proposed by another poster.

Again, can ANYONE tell me why the hitter in the first scenerio gets protection from being called out, but the other hitter does not?

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Because those are the correct calls.

Dash, can you please provide me the rule which states if a batter, while in the act of avoiding being hit by a pitch, steps out of the batters box, and hits the ball he's not out. That call is not a judgement call, if you KNOW the batter was out of the box, when the ball was hit, he's out.

Why is the guy that pops the ball up and it's caught out? Why doesn't he have the same protection that your giving the guy, who by blind luck, didn't pop the ball up, because according to YOUR logic, the call is all based off of the batters reaction to a bad pitch and his intention (avoid getting hit) and not based off of the results of the batters action.

First of all, I can't imagine a DC coming out looking for an out here. Wait a minute, that was before today. Come to think of it, I can imagine it. My response would be - "Coach, in my judgment, he was still in the box when the ball hit the bat. It's foul."

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Because those are the correct calls.

Dash, can you please provide me the rule which states if a batter, while in the act of avoiding being hit by a pitch, steps out of the batters box, and hits the ball he's not out. That call is not a judgement call, if you KNOW the batter was out of the box, when the ball was hit, he's out.

Why is the guy that pops the ball up and it's caught out? Why doesn't he have the same protection that your giving the guy, who by blind luck, didn't pop the ball up, because according to YOUR logic, the call is all based off of the batters reaction to a bad pitch and his intention (avoid getting hit) and not based off of the results of the batters action.

First of all, I can't imagine a DC coming out looking for an out here. Wait a minute, that was before today. Come to think of it, I can imagine it. My response would be - "Coach, in my judgment, he was still in the box when the ball hit the bat. It's foul."

Then you'd be a liar, because in YOUR scenerio you said the batter was out of the box when he hit the ball. Now, tell me why you wouldn't give the other batter the same protection. I guess you could ignore reality and say "in my judgement, the ball wasn't caught."

In the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Never mind."

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
In the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Never mind."

In other words you can't answer my question. Fair enough.

quote:

PIAA, fine, you explain to me under YOUR and his scenerio, why the 2nd batter is out? Why don't you extend him the same protection?

Hiding behind "you're just a youth umpire so you wouldn't know better" may make you feel superior, but it doesn't make you right. So again if the 1st batter only gets a strike, why is the 2nd batter out?

2nd batter is out for the clear action of the result.......foul fly caught by a fielder.......

The first one is based on the reality of seeing the play 100% clear enough to call the out.......on the fields I umpire on ...is he out of the box??, completely?.....was his heel touching any part of the line??....was the box legally drawn in the first place??...........When I call someone out, I want to be 100% clear in my mind that I have an out.... if I dont as in this case.(too many hazy variables at game speed) ....then its foul ball.......

I truly understand your thoughts and concerns and I know you wont see it my way........

The only thing I want to take umbrage with is your thought that I, in some way, am trying to be seem superior to the youth league umpire.........in reality I am not........I started there....In 23 years I have done more youth ball than any other level I currently umpire...and I still do PONY league which still qualifies as youth ball right????

I go out of my way to make sure that everyone knows that my opinions are just that.......... My .02.....and it is coming from a working umpire, a training umpire and a Association officer who just happens to umpire higher levels than youth ball.......

Since this is a HS baseball site and I do more HS level ball than any other type, MY comments only apply to the custom and practice of umpires who have this call above the youth level........

quote:

The first one is based on the reality of seeing the play 100% clear enough to call the out.......on the fields I umpire on ...is he out of the box??, completely?.....was his heel touching any part of the line??....was the box legally drawn in the first place??...........When I call someone out, I want to be 100% clear in my mind that I have an out.... if I dont as in this case.(too many hazy variables at game speed) ....then its foul ball.......

If you will check dash's original post he said.

quote:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

Under HIS scenerio

quote:

his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box.

So is the batter out if the umpire sees that his foot is entirley outside of the batters box?

Someone may have mentioned this above, it's such a long thread, I don't remember.

If you try to apply the same rules of baseball to ALL levels, they don't fit. How much easier is it for the 28 year old MLB pitcher to throw a pitch just down the outside edge of the plate than a 9 year old to do the same? How much do you protect the middle infielder from a hard charging 28 year old man running at full speed while the MInf is turning a DP at the MLB level by calling the "neighborhood" out? Do you do the same for a 9yo game where the runner's slide is ill timed and doesn't even get him to the bag? Where the 9yo shortstop hasn't made a good throw all day and this throw is off the bag just a little too far to have the 2nd baseman hold the bag?

Using the same rules for all levels just doesn't work. Every level is a different game. But it is the same rule book. Good umpires know what is expected at the level they are working - and they make the expected call. If the rule book was changed for a 9yo game, the plate would be 21 inches wide - not 17. If the rule book was changed for a 9yo game, pitches at the upper chest and pitches mid-calf would be strikes. But the writing in the rule book isn't changed - so umpires change it. And coaches want the umpires to change the rules. And good coaches teach their kids the adjusted rules - "hit that to right field," "he's been calling that all day, get the bat off your shoulder," etc.

It's not about cheating. It's not about taking something away from the kids. It's about 9yo's being able to play a game that has a rule book written for adults. I admit some rules are changed - the pitching distance, the distance between bases, the distance for the home run fences. But in order for this adult's game to work for kids, more adjustments have to be made.

The good umpire knows what adjustments to make - for this level, in this league, with these teams.

Even the NCAA, in the Evaluations for Umpires, grades umpires for being able to adjust the strike zone in lopsided games.

Adjustments - for this level, in this league, with these teams, in this game.

Old Fox

Fox, I agree, and I would not expect the strike zone for a 9 year old to be the same as the strike zone for a 28 year old..

I believe we were talking about an umpire calling pitches that by all accounts were no where near the zone. It seems to me as if most in here that umpire, have no problem with it. IMHO, that's not the right attitude to have. Umps already get a bad rap for not knowing rules, being arrogant and thinking their little umpire doo doo doesn't stink. I umpire, and I'm not claiming to be some great overseer of the game, I just try to call it by the rules and take as much of the gray area out as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
I believe we were talking about an umpire calling pitches that by all accounts were no where near the zone.

You know, this just doesn't square up with your comment from the second page of this thread:

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
If a pitch catches the corner of the plate, it's just as much a strike as a pitch that goes right down the middle. A pitch that is 2 inches outside is just as much a ball as a pitch that is 2' outside.

A pitch of middling height which is two inches outside is very likely to be called a strike even in college ball. Even more likely in high school. If you are seriously railing against that practice.... well, my advice would be to go look for some windmills.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

The first one is based on the reality of seeing the play 100% clear enough to call the out.......on the fields I umpire on ...is he out of the box??, completely?.....was his heel touching any part of the line??....was the box legally drawn in the first place??...........When I call someone out, I want to be 100% clear in my mind that I have an out.... if I dont as in this case.(too many hazy variables at game speed) ....then its foul ball.......

If you will check dash's original post he said.

quote:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

Under HIS scenerio

quote:

his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box.

So is the batter out if the umpire sees that his foot is entirley outside of the batters box?

No, it isd a foul ball as already stated by Dash and PIAA. The reason is by interp and common usage devised by umpires that work levels a heck of a lot higher than any of us work. Is it exactly by the book, no, but there are many interps that contradicts the rulebook.

quote:

I agree, and I would not expect the strike zone for a 9 year old to be the same as the strike zone for a 28 year old..
I believe we were talking about an umpire calling pitches that by all accounts were no where near the zone. It seems to me as if most in here that umpire, have no problem with it. IMHO, that's not the right attitude to have.

Now cccsdad has changed his story.

He previously said
" I don't care if it's one inch outside, if you can see that some part of the ball didn't cross over the plate, it shouldn't be called a strike. We all understand that some pithces will be close and you may call them a strike becasue in your judgment the ball caught some part of the plate, but if you call a ball a strike that you know didn't cross the plate, you're not doing your job."

We are not talking about pitches no where near the zone, we are talking about consistent pitches an inch or two off the plate. I hate to use this phrase, but ACCOMPLISHED UMPIRES CALL THESE STRIKES.

Your opinion has been heard and dismissed by higher level experienced umpires. If you want to move up you will take their advice or you will not be successful.

There is an old adage that says, "When it's you against the world, go with the world." I have tilted at a few windmills in the past and have gotten some rulings changed but in general go with the upper level guys, they have been trained by pros and spent a lot of money and time to learn what we know.

This thread started with umpires calling strikes that were 8" off the plate, I think MOST of us agree that is wrong; however some seem to think its fine, just reach out with the "almost 3ft. bat and slap the ball the other way".

My opinion has always been this, (and I defy anyone on the thread to quote me otherwise) if, as an umpire you see a pitch and you KNOW it didn't catch part of the plate, it shouldn't be called a strike. Let me say again, if you KNOW it didn't cross part of the plate, it shouldn't be called a strike. I'm not talking about "perception", one umpire may think the pitch caught the corner, another umpire looking at the same pitch, may think it was outside.

I'm saying AGAIN for the 10th time, if you KNOW it didn't catch part of the plate, you shouldn't call it a strike. Your opinion on whether or not the batter could have or should have hit it, is irelevent.

My whole argument is based off of an umpire calling a pitch a strike that he KNOWS didn't catch part of the plate.

As far as the 2nd part of my argument regarding the guy being out of the box, that was based of off Dash's original post where he said the batter WAS out of the box when the ball was hit, so all the "it's the ump's judgement as to whether or not the batter was out of the box" stuff, doesn't matter. Dash said the guy WAS out of the box, so I asked "if the umpire knows the batter was "entirely out of the box" (as stated by Dash in his original post) when the ball was hit, would he be out?". I still have yet to receive an answer on that.

You guys need to re read the thread from start to finish before you accues me of changing my story. I haven't wavered one bit on my opinion.

I'm sorry that some didn't have the gray matter to realize, when I was talking about pitches off the plate, I wasn't referring to 9 year olds. I'll draw a picture next time.

quote:

I hate to use this phrase, but ACCOMPLISHED UMPIRES CALL THESE STRIKES.

Oh really, watch a major league game and tell me how many pitches you see just off the plate that are not called stikes. I see those pitches called sometimes, and sometimes they are not. It's all the umpires perception on whether or not he felt like the ball caught part of the plate.

It's not some "universal" unwritten umpiring rule which says if the pitch is only an inch off the plate, it's a strike.

Again watch the games, you will see pitches 1" off the plate called balls, and sometimes the same guy will call it a strike. So I totally reject your

quote:

ACCOMPLISHED UMPIRES CALL THESE STRIKES.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Stop acting like if someone doesn't call these types of pitches strikes, they must not be an accomplished umpire.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
This thread started with umpires calling strikes that were 8" off the plate, I think MOST of us agree that is wrong; however some seem to think its fine, just reach out with the "almost 3ft. bat and slap the ball the other way".

Please stop misquoting me. Here is what I said:

quote:
Originally posted by cccsdad:
if you give the pitcher 2-4 inches off the plate, how does the batter compensate for that?


He drives it to the opposite field with his nearly 3-foot long bat.

I also said "certainly not 8 inches" in another prior post.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:


As far as the 2nd part of my argument regarding the guy being out of the box, that was based of off Dash's original post where he said the batter WAS out of the box when the ball was hit, so all the "it's the ump's judgement as to whether or not the batter was out of the box" stuff, doesn't matter. Dash said the guy WAS out of the box, so I asked "if the umpire knows the batter was "entirely out of the box" (as stated by Dash in his original post) when the ball was hit, would he be out?". I still have yet to receive an answer on that.

Here is the answer. The intent of the batter's box rule is not to penalize the batter for trying to get out of the way of a beanball, when the ball just happens to hit his bat. The intent of the rule is to penalize a batter for GAINING AN ADVANTAGE by stepping out of the box to hit an intentional ball, or to get 3 steps toward 1st base on a bunt. Now if the ball hits the bat, pops up and a fielder makes the catch, well, there's nothing you can do about that. The ball was put in play. Sometimes you get the short end of the stick. But if the ball becomes an uncaught foul, it is just that - a foul ball. That is already an "unwarranted" penalty against the batter, and the rule is certainly not there to penalize him further. Ignore it.

Anyone can enforce the rules to the letter. That's easy. Enforcing the rules to create the result they were intended to produce - a fair and impartial contest - is the hard part. Sometimes, you just have to umpire. With all due respect ccsdad, that is something you need to learn to do.

Dash, again, tell me why you don't offer equal protection to both batters in your scenerios, remember

quote:

The intent of the batter's box rule is not to penalize the batter for trying to get out of the way of a beanball, when the ball just happens to hit his bat

I NEVER mis quoted you!!

quote:

Enforcing the rules to create the result they were intended to produce - a fair and impartial contest - is the hard part

and you think calling pitches off the plate, strikes, does this?

I simply asked you why, one batter gets your protection and the other doesn't?

If you truely want a

quote:

fair and impartial contest

shouldn't both players recieve the same fair and impartial treatment?

quote:

Sometimes, you just have to umpire. With all due respect ccsdad, that is something you need to learn to do.

With all due respect you are the one that made up this silly scenerio, which to date, I've NEVER seen happen in any game I've watched or officiated in.
I also find it funny that you call in to question my ability to umpire when you know nothing about me. I'm not Johnny by the book and the h e l l with everything else. I try to be "fair and impartial" while enforcing the rules and trying to eleminate as much of the "gray area" as possible. My experiecne has taught me, if you keep it as close to the ruels as possible, while using common sense, you will generally be alright. Some of the biggest pain in the rear umpires I've worked with are the ones, that go by the double, secret, super duper, umpire unwritten code.

I will also admit that there's way more to umpiring than just being a guy that knows rules. But knowing the rules is the foundation that we all as umpires build from. For me, I feel more comfortable justifying a call if I have the rule to support me, than if it's just me doing what I "think" is right at the time.

I have concluded you are a troll. I will neither read nor respond to any of your future posts.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I have concluded you are a troll. I will neither read nor respond to any of your future posts.

Oh, so if I don't umpire according to YOUR standards I'm not doing it correctly. And if I don't accept YOUR premise on a given scenerio and debate you on it, I'm a "troll".

In other words, you can't give me a well thought out answer to my question, "why don't both players get equal protection?", so now your reduced to name calling.

I think we have reached the end of the value of this topic........

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree....and leave it at that.

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
I think we have reached the end of the value of this topic........

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree....and leave it at that.

agreed. Now that's ironic.

I haven't had a chance to read all of this and I am pressed for time,son has a game here in a few minutes,but I actually had an umpire tell me HIS zone was from shins to shoulders and 2" in and 2" out.Granted these are 9 and 10 year old pitchers AND hitters and the zone may need to be opened a bit or we will be walking all night long but how the heck can someone define SHINS,they go from you knees to your ankles. (practically a whole strike zone in itself)


One of our coaches asked him if he could hit that when he was 9.

This guy is consistant,consistantly bad.

He starts out with that zone but as stated earlier,it is hard to see what the ball actually is doing across the plate so he may miss and it is impossible for kids to hit.

9-10 year olds shouldn't need an umpire for balls and strikes. They should be taught to swing at every pitch within reasonable reach. If it can't be hit, it's a ball. Taking a strike (or two) at that age is a crime. It ruins a game. The kids get one hack instead of three to help (certain) dad's W/L record.

The kids have MUCH more fun when the ball gets put in play. Everyone has something to do. Swing the bats.

cccsdad:
I answered why one is called one way and why the other isn't. What other explanation do you need?

quote:

Taking a strike (or two) at that age is a crime.

I try to limit my posts to distilled first-person observations or scientific citations. The following are distilled from 50+ years of playing and coaching experience:

No player enjoys 6-inning games with 8, 9, 10 walks per team. Nor should any coach teach "waiting for walks" disguised as "plate patience".

That said, age 9/10 IS THE RIGHT TIME to begin learning and applying pitch recognition fundamentals... which rely on a long, complex learning curve, and are naturally limited (at that age) to simple ball/strike identification.

Only a small fraction of players are ever really trained to trained in this regard, while pitch recognition and patience become more difficult and often impossible to teach and learn... once bad habits are established.

quote:

Originally posted by HaverDad:

quote:

Taking a strike (or two) at that age is a crime.

I try to limit my posts to distilled first-person observations or scientific citations. The following are distilled from 50+ years of playing and coaching experience:

No player enjoys 6-inning games with 8, 9, 10 walks per team. Nor should any coach teach "waiting for walks" disguised as "plate patience".

That said, age 9/10 IS THE RIGHT TIME to begin learning and applying pitch recognition fundamentals... which rely on a long, complex learning curve, and are naturally limited (at that age) to simple ball/strike identification.

Only a small fraction of players are ever really trained to trained in this regard, while pitch recognition and patience become more difficult and often impossible to teach and learn... once bad habits are established.

What bad habits? At 9-10 years of age, learning to swing at pitches they can hit and lay off the ones they can't is more important than ball/strike identification, especially since balls and strikes will vary from game to game. It takes no time at all to learn to take a strike. It takes plenty of swings to learn which pitches you can hit hard.