Knuckleball

[Moe]

Is there any different way to judge ball/strike on a knuckleball? I stand in a box position with my head in the slot, but I still have a hard time judging the movement.

[blue23ll]

The key is to keep your head still and track the ball all the way into the catchers glove and really take your time in making calls. There is really no special way to approach the knuckle ball, except to expect a lot of catcher movement, both glove and body.

[Dannytheman]

Close your eyes and guess like the rest of us!!

[semper_fi_72]

The pitchers doesn't know where it will go.

The catcher doesn't know where it will go.

So yes just watch it with your eyes and make a call where you think it went.

[carolinablue]

Actually, I've never seen a real good knuckleball. Some kids throw that slow thing and think it's a real knuckleball but it's just a glorified change-up.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

How do you catch a knuckleball ? Wait until it stops rolling, and pick it up - Bob Ueker

[JHSump]

How do you catch a knuckleball ? Wait until it stops rolling, and pick it up - Bob Ueker

How do you call a knuckleball?  Wait until the catcher picks it up, then ask him.

[afaber12]

How do you catch a knuckleball ? Wait until it stops rolling, and pick it up - Bob Ueker

There are two ways to catch a knuckleball... Neither of them work. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jocko]

Simple. It's a strike until it shows you it's not.

[BigUmpire]

Simple. It's a strike until it shows you it's not.

All pitches are strikes.

 

Only some unnatural, unusual force moves them out of the strike zone occasionally. 

 

Good frame of mind to be in every time the pitcher releases the ball.

[JaxRolo]

With a good Knuckleball  you should tell if you are tracking the ball properly,

[maven]

The knuckleball, as an extremely slow off-speed pitch, exposes umpires who have bad timing (not accusing the OP, just describing a general phenomenon). Such umpires typically guess on any off-speed pitch — and sometimes on fastballs too.

 

Some umpires judge a pitch like a batter, as it's released from the pitcher's hand, rather than tracking it all the way to the mitt before judging it. They make up their mind while the ball is halfway there and call it as it hits the mitt (or even before). So the knuckleball, which they really might as well flip a coin to call, can make them feel like they don't know how to call the pitch.

 

The answer, unsurprisingly, is to improve timing and the proper use of the eyes for all pitches. If you track a pitch all the way to the glove, process the trajectory, decide ball/strike, and THEN make your call/mechanic, it doesn't matter whether the pitch is 35 or 100 mph.

 

Notice that following this advice comes to more than just "slow down." Umpires who make their call before the ball crosses the plate and then wait an arbitrary time ("2 count" or whatever) will not do any better with off-speed pitches, and for the same reason. Good timing is a consequence of proper use of the eyes, not an extra layer imposed on bad calls to help sell them.

[umpire_scott]

Is it just me or do the two philosophies of "every pitch is a strike until it proves otherwise" and "follow the pitch with your eyes all they way to the glove" contradict each other.  

[noumpere]

It's just you.

 

But some people like one of the sayings better than the other just because of how they are wired.  Use the one that works for you.

[maven]

Is it just me or do the two philosophies of "every pitch is a strike until it proves otherwise" and "follow the pitch with your eyes all they way to the glove" contradict each other.  

 

You have to track the pitch to the glove in order to determine whether it "proves otherwise."

[umpire_scott]

 

Is it just me or do the two philosophies of "every pitch is a strike until it proves otherwise" and "follow the pitch with your eyes all they way to the glove" contradict each other.  

 

You have to track the pitch to the glove in order to determine whether it "proves otherwise."

 

 

So mentally wouldn't it be better to be thinking of it simply as a "pitch" when it leaves his hand and not a "strike".  It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

[umpire_scott]

It's just you.

 

But some people like one of the sayings better than the other just because of how they are wired.  Use the one that works for you.

 

I've been really working on tracking the pitch all the way to the glove.  So when the balls leaves the pitchers hand I'm not thinking about anything except for following the ball flight.  If the philosophy of "every pitch is a strike until it proves otherwise" is more just a saying to indicate "call more strikes" rather than a mindset that you have before every pitch then I get it.

[maven]

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

[umpire_scott]

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

[BigUmpire]

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

Perfect!

[noumpere]

 

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

For whatever reason, most umpires that I have trained tend to "ball strikes" and don't "strike balls".  that is, without telling them anything (heck, even with telling them "call strikes") the zones are too tight.  So, if we can give them a bias to call more strikes, they can start to get to a zone that's fair for both the offense and defense.

 

if that doesn't describe you, then don't use it.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

For whatever reason, most umpires that I have trained tend to "ball strikes" and don't "strike balls".  that is, without telling them anything (heck, even with telling them "call strikes") the zones are too tight.  So, if we can give them a bias to call more strikes, they can start to get to a zone that's fair for both the offense and defense.

 

if that doesn't describe you, then don't use it.

 

 

I would love to have a game I do video taped where it showed the side and overhead view of each pitch and then show what I called.  I don't think I ever "ball a strike".  If the book definition of the zone is considered.  Why would I do that?  That only prolongs the game.  So whenever I call a pitch a ball in my judgement it was not in the strike zone.  If any part of the ball touches the plate and the the ball height wise is between the knee and the navel, I'm pretty certain I get all of those right.  It's those pitches that are not "book strikes" that most umpires call strikes anyway that I have the most trouble with because I'm not confident in distinguishing what is too far outside for me to still call a strike.  I think this also leads to some inconsistency because I start to question whether I should have called it or not.  

[Kevin_K]

 

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

 

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that when your are calling balls and strikes you should not be thinking as much as you should be reacting to the various stimuli.

 

Leave the thinking out of the mix. Read, track, react. Most pitches require no thinking. Perform the same action over and over, the correct way, until it becomes second nature and there will be no need for any cognitive bias, philosophy, or any other higher order thinking skills.

 

Stay a cavmen!

[carolinablue]

 

 

 

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

For whatever reason, most umpires that I have trained tend to "ball strikes" and don't "strike balls".  that is, without telling them anything (heck, even with telling them "call strikes") the zones are too tight.  So, if we can give them a bias to call more strikes, they can start to get to a zone that's fair for both the offense and defense.

 

if that doesn't describe you, then don't use it.

 

 

I would love to have a game I do video taped where it showed the side and overhead view of each pitch and then show what I called.  I don't think I ever "ball a strike".  If the book definition of the zone is considered.  Why would I do that?  That only prolongs the game.  So whenever I call a pitch a ball in my judgement it was not in the strike zone.  If any part of the ball touches the plate and the the ball height wise is between the knee and the navel, I'm pretty certain I get all of those right.  It's those pitches that are not "book strikes" that most umpires call strikes anyway that I have the most trouble with because I'm not confident in distinguishing what is too far outside for me to still call a strike.  I think this also leads to some inconsistency because I start to question whether I should have called it or not.  

 

 

 

IMO, I think you develop a zone thats fair and acceptable over a period of time. Working game after game at various levels, Listening to knowledable criticism, seeing what works and everyone will accept. There will always be ooo's and ahh's because it's a game inside a game. The pitcher wants the wide zone and the batter wants the book zone or smaller. Finding the line takes experience. Then it's just a matter of being consistant, not only during the game but game after game as well.

[Jocko]

It's a strike until its not. And he's out until he's not. What's confusing you?