It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:32 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 9:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
...into the strike zone after receiving the pitch, the umpire should automatically call it a ball. In that case it's obvious the catcher thought it was a ball. If he didn't he wouldn't need to attempt to "frame" the pitch. So if he thinks it's a ball, why shouldn't the umpire?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm
Posts: 23997
pizza_Place: Pizanos
Should the impact really care or see the glove?

_________________
Peter Clavin wrote:
Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.
Nardi wrote:
We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
Should the impact really care or see the glove?


Is "impact" supposed to be "umpire" above?

If so, I would say that if the umpire notices the catcher dragging the ball into the strikezone it makes calling the pitch a no brainer. It's a ball. Calling it a strike is just rewarding the defense for subterfuge.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:27 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm
Posts: 23997
pizza_Place: Pizanos
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
Should the impact really care or see the glove?


Is "impact" supposed to be "umpire" above?

If so, I would say that if the umpire notices the catcher dragging the ball into the strikezone it makes calling the pitch a no brainer. It's a ball. Calling it a strike is just rewarding the defense for subterfuge.

Yeah, autocorrect.

I get it’s a tough job but the point is to see the ball cross the plate. What happens after that should have no bearing on the call.

_________________
Peter Clavin wrote:
Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.
Nardi wrote:
We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31600
pizza_Place: What??
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31600
pizza_Place: What??
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
Should the impact really care or see the glove?


Is "impact" supposed to be "umpire" above?

If so, I would say that if the umpire notices the catcher dragging the ball into the strikezone it makes calling the pitch a no brainer. It's a ball. Calling it a strike is just rewarding the defense for subterfuge.

Yeah, autocorrect.

I get it’s a tough job but the point is to see the ball cross the plate. What happens after that should have no bearing on the call.

Yes, see where the ball crosses the plate in that millisecond.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Nardi wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere


According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65745
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Warren Newson wrote:
JORR's premise is somewhat suspect.

Edited for brevity but ya know.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 23794
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
If went the opposite way when umpiring on any call where somebody tried to deceive me it would be ugly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Warren Newson wrote:
Nardi wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere


According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww


If you really thought it was a strike, why would you need to move the glove at all?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Nardi wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere


According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww


If you really thought it was a strike, why would you need to move the glove at all?


The catcher doesn't think it's a strike, and tries to move his glove in a way that's not detectable by the umpire. If he does it right, the umpire doesn't notice and, therefore, is not in position to react to the movement of the glove.

I don't think anything is perfectly still back there, and there's always some movement. It's the job of the framer to make framing movement look like normal movement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Warren Newson wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Nardi wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere


According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww


If you really thought it was a strike, why would you need to move the glove at all?


The catcher doesn't think it's a strike, and tries to move his glove in a way that's not detectable by the umpire.


Correct. So if the umpire does notice it, it should be an automatic ball, right? My main point is that if the pitcher's own teammate who has the same basic view as the umpire doesn't think it's a strike, why should the umpire disagree?

The guy moving the glove is trying to cheat, isn't he?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Nardi wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere


According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww


If you really thought it was a strike, why would you need to move the glove at all?


The catcher doesn't think it's a strike, and tries to move his glove in a way that's not detectable by the umpire.


Correct. So if the umpire does notice it, it should be an automatic ball, right? My main point is that if the pitcher's own teammate who has the same basic view as the umpire doesn't think it's a strike, why should the umpire disagree?

The guy moving the glove is trying to cheat, isn't he?


If you accept the premise that there's always some movement, you can't call balls and strikes based solely on movement. If you did, you would be calling pitches right down the middle balls. I think framing works because the umpire can't distinguish normal movement from framing movement. Also, there's a possibility that the best framers have the same movement every time (the ball is always getting pulled to the center of the plate even when it's basically there already) and are not making a conscious attempt to frame, which would make it even harder to detect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Warren Newson wrote:

If you accept the premise that there's always some movement, you can't call balls and strikes based solely on movement. If you did, you would be calling pitches right down the middle balls. I think framing works because the umpire can't distinguish normal movement from framing movement. Also, there's a possibility that the best framers have the same movement every time (the ball is always getting pulled to the center of the plate even when it's basically there already) and are not making a conscious attempt to frame, which would make it even harder to detect.


Maybe. But when a pitcher drops a curve right into the zone and freezes the batter you see the catcher hold his glove in place like he's a statue.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:42 pm
Posts: 7294
Location: Land of Lincoln
pizza_Place: Tombstone
pitch-framing is about to become completely irrelevant anyway. We are an eyelash away from automated ball and strike calls, at least on a partial basis. 10 years from now, pitch framing is going to seem quaint and old-fashioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:

If you accept the premise that there's always some movement, you can't call balls and strikes based solely on movement. If you did, you would be calling pitches right down the middle balls. I think framing works because the umpire can't distinguish normal movement from framing movement. Also, there's a possibility that the best framers have the same movement every time (the ball is always getting pulled to the center of the plate even when it's basically there already) and are not making a conscious attempt to frame, which would make it even harder to detect.


Maybe. But when a pitcher drops a curve right into the zone and freezes the batter you see the catcher hold his glove in place like he's a statue.


True, but even then I suspect there's at least some movement in between the time the ball is caught and the freeze takes place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
man of few opinions wrote:
pitch-framing is about to become completely irrelevant anyway. We are an eyelash away from automated ball and strike calls, at least on a partial basis. 10 years from now, pitch framing is going to seem quaint and old-fashioned.


I would welcome that change. Framing does nothing for me as a fan. I would rather see them just get the call right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31600
pizza_Place: What??
Warren Newson wrote:
man of few opinions wrote:
pitch-framing is about to become completely irrelevant anyway. We are an eyelash away from automated ball and strike calls, at least on a partial basis. 10 years from now, pitch framing is going to seem quaint and old-fashioned.


I would welcome that change. Framing does nothing for me as a fan. I would rather see them just get the call right.

It unduly kept Grandal having a job.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Manfred on pitch framing:

The last point is something that Manfred touched on yesterday. “I think the players feel that a catcher that frames is part of the art of the game,” Manfred said. “If in fact framing is no longer important, the kind of players that would occupy that position might be different than they are today. You could hypothesize a world where instead of a premium catcher who’s focused on defense, the catching position becomes a more offensive player. That alters people’s careers, so those are real, legitimate concerns that we need to think all the way through before we jump off that bridge.”

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/05/ ... -2025.html

I don't agree with that take.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16471
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Warren Newson wrote:
Manfred on pitch framing:

The last point is something that Manfred touched on yesterday. “I think the players feel that a catcher that frames is part of the art of the game,” Manfred said. “If in fact framing is no longer important, the kind of players that would occupy that position might be different than they are today. You could hypothesize a world where instead of a premium catcher who’s focused on defense, the catching position becomes a more offensive player. That alters people’s careers, so those are real, legitimate concerns that we need to think all the way through before we jump off that bridge.”

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/05/ ... -2025.html

I don't agree with that take.


Yeah, I'd go as far as saying that's a moronic stance. I mean WTF?

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 6:47 am
Posts: 1202
pizza_Place: Bennys
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Manfred on pitch framing:

The last point is something that Manfred touched on yesterday. “I think the players feel that a catcher that frames is part of the art of the game,” Manfred said. “If in fact framing is no longer important, the kind of players that would occupy that position might be different than they are today. You could hypothesize a world where instead of a premium catcher who’s focused on defense, the catching position becomes a more offensive player. That alters people’s careers, so those are real, legitimate concerns that we need to think all the way through before we jump off that bridge.”

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/05/ ... -2025.html

I don't agree with that take.


Yeah, I'd go as far as saying that's a moronic stance. I mean WTF?

Yeah I can’t believe that is coming from the commissioner. That sounds like something the union rep says. I would rather have someone on the field that can contribute offensively to the game instead of some sack of shit that through sleight of hand induce the wrong call.

_________________
rogers park bryan wrote:
Mulli is Howard Stern in his prime compared to Haugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19024
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
...into the strike zone after receiving the pitch, the umpire should automatically call it a ball. In that case it's obvious the catcher thought it was a ball. If he didn't he wouldn't need to attempt to "frame" the pitch. So if he thinks it's a ball, why shouldn't the umpire?


If the ump saw the pitch out of the zone prior to the catcher framing the pitch then the framing shouldn’t matter at all. Isn’t that their job?

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40639
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Remember when Bernsie thought that bum Cubs catcher was a HOFer because framing.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 8:54 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm
Posts: 23997
pizza_Place: Pizanos
SpiralStairs wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
...into the strike zone after receiving the pitch, the umpire should automatically call it a ball. In that case it's obvious the catcher thought it was a ball. If he didn't he wouldn't need to attempt to "frame" the pitch. So if he thinks it's a ball, why shouldn't the umpire?


If the ump saw the pitch out of the zone prior to the catcher framing the pitch then the framing shouldn’t matter at all. Isn’t that their job?

That’s the job.

_________________
Peter Clavin wrote:
Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.
Nardi wrote:
We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2024 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2500
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
pittmike wrote:
Remember when Bernsie thought that bum Cubs catcher was a HOFer because framing.


No. Next question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2024 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31600
pizza_Place: What??
Warren Newson wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Remember when Bernsie thought that bum Cubs catcher was a HOFer because framing.


No. Next question.

But there are people out there that think framing is the catcher's most important job. It seems the commissioner is one of them.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
SpiralStairs wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
...into the strike zone after receiving the pitch, the umpire should automatically call it a ball. In that case it's obvious the catcher thought it was a ball. If he didn't he wouldn't need to attempt to "frame" the pitch. So if he thinks it's a ball, why shouldn't the umpire?


If the ump saw the pitch out of the zone prior to the catcher framing the pitch then the framing shouldn’t matter at all. Isn’t that their job?


It makes it very easy when the umpire sees the glove move, doesn't it? If the catcher doesn't think it's a strike, why should the umpire?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19024
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
The catcher’s job is to catch. The catcher doesn’t determine balls and strikes. The umpire determines balls and strikes independent of what the catcher does (if they are doing their job properly).

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79526
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
SpiralStairs wrote:
The catcher’s job is to catch. The catcher doesn’t determine balls and strikes. The umpire determines balls and strikes independent of what the catcher does (if they are doing their job properly).


Right. And when he sees the glove move, the catcher made his call very easy!

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group