Ball High, Ball Low, Ball Inside

[jdense]

I worked with a young umpire recently who when working the plate called pitches 'ball high' 'ball low' 'ball inside'. He didn't do this consistently, only on borderline (apparently to him) pitches. After the game when he asked for feedback I told him this was not proper mechanics, as it invited "no, it wasn't' comments from coaches. He informed me that he went to a umpire school (name withheld) and he was taught this was the proper mechanic. He also referred to 3 NCAA College World Series umpires who allegedly used the same mechanic. Maybe I am just an old fart, but this doesn't make any sense.Why invite second-guessing? I'd be interested if any D-I umpires have been advised this is a proper mechanic. Thanks in advance.

 

[Thunderheads]

It's also used at the MLB level quite a lot.  I think this "mechanic" will depend on what level you work, or how much experience you have.

 

You're going to get a mixed bag of responses here for sure .... but I don't think locating a pitch that's close is going to promote a coach from complaining about it.  It doesn't matter what YOU DO, if they don't like it, they're going to complain anyways

[noumpere]

I would use it more on in and out than on up and down.  And at most a couple of times a game.

[Mike Prince]

I think this is just a personal thing, sort of like whether you point or hammer strikes.  If you are verbalizing pitch location, you will learn how to deal with comments about it.  But like Jeff said, whether or not you verbalize it, someone else will if they don't agree.

 

My view is that calling a borderline pitch "in" or "out" isn't too big of a deal if done sparingly, but both dugouts can easily see "low" and "high" and if you call these you do open yourself up a bit more for chirping.  If it's just above or below your zone, everyone in the park knows where you thought it was so there's no reason to verbalize it.

[JHSump]

Maybe at the higher levels it's useful to verbalize location. I don't know.

 

At the levels I do (most of it is youth baseball + HS), the less I say the better --- in "saying hello," in plate meetings, in discussions, in disputes, in ejections. Coaches want to "argue" anything and everything!  So, why would I want to say any more than "Strike" or "Ball" when calling pitches?

[Thunderheads]

I worked with a young umpire recently who when working the plate called pitches 'ball high' 'ball low' 'ball inside'. He didn't do this consistently, only on borderline (apparently to him) pitches. After the game when he asked for feedback I told him this was not proper mechanics, as it invited "no, it wasn't' comments from coaches. He informed me that he went to a umpire school (name withheld) and he was taught this was the proper mechanic. He also referred to 3 NCAA College World Series umpires who allegedly used the same mechanic. Maybe I am just an old fart, but this doesn't make any sense.Why invite second-guessing? I'd be interested if any D-I umpires have been advised this is a proper mechanic. Thanks in advance.

by the way .... why withhold the umpire school name? 

[Larry in TN]

I thought the proper mechanic for a close pitch was "steeeriiiiiiiiiike!"  

[grayhawk]

I use "ball, that's in" and "ball, that's out" only on close pitches - especially the ones inside because that's the one that fools them more than any.

 

On close pitches that are too high or low, I call "ball" for all to hear, but will then quietly let the catcher know if it's up or down.

 

This method works extremely well for me, as I can count on one hand the number of times I was asked pitch location by a coach all year in 2013 (in 109 games).

 

As others have said - use it sparingly - only on the ones that you think they may ask about.  You are answering the question before it's asked.

[Chip]

I know what you meant on this (over the plate but up or down), but I couldn't help but chuckle since I do some 10U games where I wonder if the catcher might actually confuse high and low 

 

 

On close pitches that are too high or low, I call "ball" for all to hear, but will then quietly let the catcher know if it's up or down.

 

[johnnyg08]

I've been told by the local guys who work D1 in Minnesota that they'll located in and out, but not up and down since that can be seen from the dugouts.

[wingman3110]

This technique was definitely NOT taught at TUS. There it's "BALL ONE"

 

 

They did however teach us when responding to the manager or catcher where the pitch was the proper language is: up, down, in and out.

[JaxRolo]

I thought the proper mechanic for a close pitch was "steeeriiiiiiiiiike!"

I agree. If it's that close that you have to justify the location then it's close enough for a strike.

[grayhawk]

 

I thought the proper mechanic for a close pitch was "steeeriiiiiiiiiike!"

I agree. If it's that close that you have to justify the location then it's close enough for a strike.

 

 

Disagree.  A belt-high pitch 8 inches inside looks GREAT to DC sitting on his bucket.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

I thought the proper mechanic for a close pitch was "steeeriiiiiiiiiike!"

I agree. If it's that close that you have to justify the location then it's close enough for a strike.

 

 

Disagree.  A belt-high pitch 8 inches inside looks GREAT to DC sitting on his bucket.

 

I disagree as well......  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS

[Chip]

I sense a new rallying cry for fans who want different calls. Instead of "get that ump some glasses" ... "get that ump a bucket!"

 

 

 

I thought the proper mechanic for a close pitch was "steeeriiiiiiiiiike!"

I agree. If it's that close that you have to justify the location then it's close enough for a strike.

 

 

Disagree.  A belt-high pitch 8 inches inside looks GREAT to DC sitting on his bucket.

 

[LMSANS]

I started using this 2 years ago.  I honestly have never had a lot of issues with my zone, but for some reason I started saying ball up, ball down, ball in, ball out.  On those few occasions where I have been questioned about half the time the catcher has answered for me, repeating up, down, in, out. 

[alex7]

I would use it more on in and out than on up and down.  And at most a couple of times a game.

 

This is what I do.  Gives catcher and DC feedback before DC asks the "where was that?" time-wasting question.  I don't hear that question much anymore, which makes the added verbal worth it to me.

[UmpJM]

I don't do it, but it's certainly done by (some) experienced guys at very high levels.

 

I will tell catchers early in the game, or if they ask me nice.

 

JM

[maven]

I minimize questions about why a pitch wasn't a strike by calling more strikes.

 

No borderline balls.

 

(bumper sticker?)

[BigSimonia]

I started using this 2 years ago.  I honestly have never had a lot of issues with my zone, but for some reason I started saying ball up, ball down, ball in, ball out.  On those few occasions where I have been questioned about half the time the catcher has answered for me, repeating up, down, in, out. 

About 2 years ago I worked a game with our association's President.  I noticed that he would voice "ball in" "ball out" "ball up" and "ball down" on some (close) pitches.  I asked him about it thinking that the more info you gave the more the HC had to argue with. He said he had found it was exactly the opposite.  So... I started voicing those close ball calls.  

 

My experience was just as he described.  I got lots less flack - very little "where did that miss"  from the dugouts and on those occasions when there was still a question, the catcher actually relayed the info I had just given him to the coach.  I found the catcher would relay the info back to the pitcher as well: "Bring it up Johnny".  It helped the catcher and the team establish the perimeters of my zone (and everyone is a little different) a lot quicker with less hassle.

[BigSimonia]

I minimize questions about why a pitch wasn't a strike by calling more strikes.

 

No borderline balls.

 

(bumper sticker?)

Of course there are borderline balls.  If you call a borderline pitch a strike (which is fine), what happens when the next pitch is borderline to the previously established borderline.  The second pitch is just a little off the borderline you just established on the previous pitch - still a strike?  If so, what about the third pitch which is just a little off the strike borderline you established on the second pitch - another strike?  I think you see where this is going.

At some point we've all seen pitches that are close to what we've established is our zone, but are not close enough to call as strikes - pitches you wish you could call as strikes but you just can't - those are borderline balls and voicing "ball in" (or what not) lets the catcher know why he didn't get that one.

[maven]

 

I minimize questions about why a pitch wasn't a strike by calling more strikes.

 

No borderline balls.

 

(bumper sticker?)

Of course there are borderline balls.  If you call a borderline pitch a strike (which is fine), what happens when the next pitch is borderline to the previously established borderline.  The second pitch is just a little off the borderline you just established on the previous pitch - still a strike?  If so, what about the third pitch which is just a little off the strike borderline you established on the second pitch - another strike?  I think you see where this is going.

At some point we've all seen pitches that are close to what we've established is our zone, but are not close enough to call as strikes - pitches you wish you could call as strikes but you just can't - those are borderline balls and voicing "ball in" (or what not) lets the catcher know why he didn't get that one.

 

 

Dude, I'm not making a metaphysical argument. I'm encouraging a mindset in umpires to call more strikes.

[Thunderheads]

another reason this makes sense is when F2 is setting up in or out, ..... (fairly significantly...wide enough for a ball but trying to get the batter to go fishing...) ....and F1 DRILLS the target at 'nads' height with a nice loud crack of the mitt.  I'm telling you, from the bench, THAT LOOKS GREAT! 

 

"Ball, that's inside" .......................................

.........................

..................................

..........................................cricket, cricket, cricket............... 

[Pops]

I believe that if you develop a relationship with your catcher on those borderline pitches by calling out "Ball" and then telling him where the pitch was (inside or outside), he will start agreeing with your calls and will understand your strike zone. Then when the coach asks, "where was that one?", you wait for the catcher to tell him (and he usually will). If he doesn't respond, you tell F2, "let your coach know it was outside so I don't have to tell him."  They understand how you want the game conversation to flow. It's between F2 and his coach.  I think you have to avoid talking to the coach in the dugout the entire game.  

[UmpJM]

 

 

I minimize questions about why a pitch wasn't a strike by calling more strikes.

 

No borderline balls.

 

(bumper sticker?)

Of course there are borderline balls.  If you call a borderline pitch a strike (which is fine), what happens when the next pitch is borderline to the previously established borderline.  The second pitch is just a little off the borderline you just established on the previous pitch - still a strike?  If so, what about the third pitch which is just a little off the strike borderline you established on the second pitch - another strike?  I think you see where this is going.

At some point we've all seen pitches that are close to what we've established is our zone, but are not close enough to call as strikes - pitches you wish you could call as strikes but you just can't - those are borderline balls and voicing "ball in" (or what not) lets the catcher know why he didn't get that one.

 

 

Dude, I'm not making a metaphysical argument. I'm encouraging a mindset in umpires to call more strikes.

 

 

BigSimonia,

 

You should be grateful.

 

Maven can make a kick-ass metaphysical argument! 

 

JM