Are catchers no longer striving to frame pitches in your area??

[Recontra]

Watching at least PAC 12 baseball, I see a lot of catchers who have abandoned the pursuit of the art of framing pitches. And that has run down hill to high school ball (at least around here). Maybe it started in MLB with the electronic strike zone. Don’t know. Catchers immediately lift lower pitches, or pull in outside pitches, instead of sticking the pitch and letting us take a slightly extended look on how they received the pitch, letting us look at the “stick.”

I had the pleasure of working some volunteer fall and winter ball college games a few years ago for a catcher who ended up going #1 in the draft, and who just got called up from AAA a few days ago. He made balls look like strikes. He’d catch a slightly outside pitch in the web of his mitt (with 2/3’s of his mitt over the strike zone), or glove a lowish pitch fingers up in the palm of his glove, with 2/3’s of his mitt above the knees. It was artistry. Balls that were intentionally a bit high, low, outside, or inside, he’d just immediately throw them back to the pitcher, almost before I called the pitch, making my job easy. Then he’d stick one he wanted, holding it rock solid a bit—and I’d want to bang them, and usually did. He put on summer clinics for high school catchers, and for a couple of years all high school catchers were striving to stick and frame pitches.

Now they’re all just lifting and pulling in pitches immediately after they are caught—before I’ve called the pitch in my mind. I say anything, and I’ll likely get an earful from the defensive HC. Leave his catcher be, “he’s doing what I’ve told him to do.”

Anyone else notice this trend?

 

[LRZ]

I was always amused by catchers who would pull a pitch in 6-8 inches or so, then stick it!

[Velho]

Agreed. The subtly is lost. Keep seeing catchers yank pitches at the MLB level - which youth then do a good foot plus at times.

Though I'd argue that if it was the electronic strike zone influence they'd simply stick it every time. No need to yank it and look foolish if there is nothing to be bought. It can even hurt since that old school thought "if he yanked it, it must not have been a strike" creeps in.

Makes guys like Texas catcher Silas Ardoin stand out

 

[The Man in Blue]

Moving the ball is not framing.  Framing is the catcher’s setup that allows me to see the pitch.  Moving the ball is selling, and no, I don’t buy.  If you are selling, you are telling me you didn’t think so either.

If you put grandma’s picture in a frame and hang it on the wall, it gives you a good look at the picture…  Framing.

If you try to convince me grandma’s picture is a swimsuit model … Selling.

Dont buy.

[wolfe_man]

Same thing happening around here also.

[UmpDC]

I raised three catchers before I became an umpire.  We always discussed how it was their job to make the pitch look good (optics) and to help the umpire see the strikes.  I always preached a few simple things.

1. Don't make the umpire's job harder.  If you try to "frame" or "steal" pitches, you make yourself an adversary rather than an ally.  So if it isn't a strike, catch it and throw it back.

2. If you move your hand after you catch a pitch, you're, in essence, telling the umpire you didn't think that pitch was a strike.  Why move your hand if it's  a strike?  The only reason to move your hand is to "fool" the umpire into thinking the pitch was a strike. Better that you just don't do it.

3. Reach out, get your thumb under the ball, stop the pitch cold and freeze for strikes.  A good catcher will reach out and stop that pitch right when it's a strike.  Don't let it travel or try to pull it back into the zone.  When a ball goes "pop" against the pocket of the mitt it SOUNDS like a strike to the whole world.  Pushing directly against the ball's momentum will cause that "pop" in the mitt and, more importantly, the momentum of the pitch doesn't push the glove out of the strike zone.

4. Frame with your body, not your glove.  Try to catch the pitch as close to the center line of your body as possible.  Move your whole body to the location where you want the pitch and keep your glove along the center line of your body.  Sway your hips slightly left or right to keep the glove right in the middle of your body.  If you reach side to side for the ball it looks bad (bad optics) to everyone in the park, so use your body to show you are not reaching side to side.  This one is a huge pet peeve of mine as an umpire now that everyone is down on their knee/butt instead of in a crouch.  (My kids all crouched full time).  The current popular pose behind the plate (on a knee) fixes the catcher in place so they have to reach instead of having a little latitude to sway their body.  A pitch off the outside black caught with a firm hand and a big "pop" in the mitt near the middle of a catcher's body looks more like a strike than a pitch in the white that a catcher has to reach across their body to catch.

5. Do your level best to make sure the umpire doesn't get hit with the ball.  Block everything you possibly can stop, even if there isn't anyone on base.  It's hard enough to call balls and strikes, but if the umpire behind the plate is dodging pitches it's even harder.  Show the umpire that they can stay locked in their stance because you will do your level best to make sure they don't get hit.

6. Stick up for the umpire when they get it right.  If someone on your team questions a pitch and you know it wasn't a strike, then say so.  I personally find it gratifying when a catcher does this for me.  I work hard on my zone and I try to be very consistent.  It's nice when a coach questions a pitch in the fifth inning and I hear a catcher say something to the effect of, "Ump's right.  He's been there all day, Coach".

It's about building a rapport and that is done through establishing credibility.  I try very hard to listen when I umpire to people that I believe have credibility.  People who bark all the time just become background noise.  When someone who has established their credibility with me takes a quiet moment to have a word, I always listen to them.  That's what a catcher should strive to be.

[ousafe]

What I'm seeing more now (16u and up) is catchers starting with their mitt beyond where they expect the ball to be, and moving forward and in toward the zone to meet the ball to catch it. So the natural movement of the mitt is taking the ball more into the zone and looking good. Classic example is mitt starts in dirt, and then sweeps up to catch the low pitch and make it look like it caught the hollow of the knee. But also very effective on sweeping sliders where the mitt starts outside and moves forward and in to meet the ball.  That said, it's not super common.

[beerguy55]

On 5/28/2022 at 11:42 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Moving the ball is not framing.  Framing is the catcher’s setup that allows me to see the pitch.  Moving the ball is selling, and no, I don’t buy.  If you are selling, you are telling me you didn’t think so either.

If you put grandma’s picture in a frame and hang it on the wall, it gives you a good look at the picture…  Framing.

If you try to convince me grandma’s picture is a swimsuit model … Selling.

Dont buy.

Like many other things that involve selling a call to an official, this is learned and/or reinforced behavior.  As I've previously discussed with runners bumping into fielders, and soccer players flopping, if players are "rewarded" for their action they'll keep doing it.

Catchers move their mitt because it works...at least it works more often than it doesn't.  When umpires stop falling for it...or, better yet, starting calling balls when a catcher moves their mitt, even when it was a strike, the behavior will stop.   (of course, robo-umps will make it moot, but I still hold out hope that won't happen)

In my early days of catching...and even as little as 20 years ago I would find some umps that did this...it was the opposite...if you stuck your mitt anywhere near the plate, even almost to the chalk, and the pitcher stuck the target, if you didn't move the mitt you were getting the strike call.  THAT was what framing used to be.  You "sold" the call by showing that the pitcher hit exactly where he was aiming.  That has changed.

In the last decade I taught my catchers not to move the mitt, but to turn it, so the ump could see the ball.

[The Man in Blue]

My unpopular opinion ... the only time an umpire should look at the catcher's mitt is on a possible UK3.  Otherwise, I don't give a damn where the mitt is.

I do my best to see the ball at the plate.  While I don't watch the catcher's actions, I will admit that I have caught myself a few times being influenced (negatively) with catchers who sit too far back.  My mind then starts to focus on the "extra travel time and distance" and I start unconsciously talking myself out of strikes.  (I try to fix this by slowing my calls down a little more and refocusing.)

This is why I really strive to bring the meaning of "framing" back to how the catcher sets up and the look that we get through that frame.  Coaches have bastardized the term to inappropriately refer to selling.

[Velho]

25 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

My unpopular opinion ... the only time an umpire should look at the catcher's mitt is on a possible UK3.  Otherwise, I don't give a damn where the mitt is.

Confession time: I don't understand the "look the ball all the way into the mitt" mantra.

I feel seeing the ball come across the plate and holding my eyes there aids processing the ball/strike determination. Sweeping my eyes along with the ball into the mitt feels a distraction and unnecessary unless it's a potential UK3. We're no longer in the world where how (or if) the catcher catches the ball matters.

I hear this mantra preached endlessly. What am I missing?

[beerguy55]

14 minutes ago, Velho said:

Confession time: I don't understand the "look the ball all the way into the mitt" mantra.

I feel seeing the ball come across the plate and holding my eyes there aids processing the ball/strike determination. Sweeping my eyes along with the ball into the mitt feels a distraction and unnecessary unless it's a potential UK3. We're no longer in the world where how (or if) the catcher catches the ball matters.

I hear this mantra preached endlessly. What am I missing?

If you're not tracking the ball from hand to mitt you're taking your eye off of it, somewhere.  And it raises the question to "where/when".  You will see batters practice this too, actually watching the pitch all the way to the mitt...even some turning their heads, what looks to be exaggerated, in doing so.  It's just about muscle memory and maintaining a habit.  If you know if you watched the ball from the moment it left the pitcher's hand to the moment it hit the catcher's mitt you know you haven't missed any part of its path.    Anything else and the risk is you've stopped watching the ball too early...and maybe even decided your call too early.

 

[Velho]

Thanks for the response @beerguy55

re: Players: 100% agree. Tracking the entire flight of pitches they take helps them learn the pitcher's ball path and hit the ball better.

Difference though is umpires aren't trying to hit the ball. They want to see if it crossed through a specific space - which ends at point of plate.

Solid comment that if you don't track it to mitt you may stop early - which circles back to the OP. When I do 10U-12U games with the catcher 4-6 feet behind the plate and not framing it (in the good sense) it makes a less than ideal situation to call the ball/strike.

[LMSANS]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Thanks for the response @beerguy55

re: Players: 100% agree. Tracking the entire flight of pitches they take helps them learn the pitcher's ball path and hit the ball better.

Difference though is umpires aren't trying to hit the ball. They want to see if it crossed through a specific space - which ends at point of plate.

Solid comment that if you don't track it to mitt you may stop early - which circles back to the OP. When I do 10U-12U games with the catcher 4-6 feet behind the plate and not framing it (in the good sense) it makes a less than ideal situation to call the ball/strike.

Jim Evans called it "proper use of the eyes". It is really a timing tool so you don't rush your calls. "see it, hear it, call it"

[Recontra]

A pitch remains a pitch until it stops moving (think Randy Johnson tagging that dove and the umpire turning with the pitch to follow it to the fence where it stopped being a pitch).

I found this gem on Instagram (and will use it as a teaching tool in the future). It was posted to see how the umpire catches the pitch, but watch him follow the pitch (he never would have caught it on the rebound had he not been tracking it all the way).

Also, I've had higher level coaches scream at me if a catcher slides out to grab a pitch that passes through the strike zone (butchers it 🙂). So, I'm one who most definitely believes how a pitcher receives a pitch is not only relevant, it's additional information on the pitch.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CcY_kGEMuPl/

 

[JonnyCat]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

My unpopular opinion ... the only time an umpire should look at the catcher's mitt is on a possible UK3.  Otherwise, I don't give a damn where the mitt is.

Tracking the ball all the way to the mitt is a widely taught mechanic, and has been for many years at all levels, from LL to Pro school. Not only does it help with timing, as others have alluded to, you use all of the information available about the pitch to help render a decision.

It does matter how the catcher receives the pitch, especially at the higher levels, particularly on borderline pitches. On close pitches that a catcher butchers, and I ball it at HS and above, if I hear anything form the coach, it's always yelling at the catcher for not catching the pitch. Usually they'll say something to the effect of, "you cost your pitcher a strike."

It absolutely does matter that umpires watch pitches to the mitt, and not just on U3K.

[Richvee]

The only “ trend” I see are F2’s that think they’re framing but they’re yanking. I’m not sure they’ve “ abandoned the pursuit “, or they’re just not good at framing, and end up yanking instead.    

[Kevin_K]

 

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

My unpopular opinion ... the only time an umpire should look at the catcher's mitt is on a possible UK3.  Otherwise, I don't give a damn where the mitt is.

I have found in the past that when I do not track the pitch all the way to the glove on every pitch I struggle to sometimes find the ball off the bat. When my tracking is where it needs to be, I see the ball off the bat every time whether it is toward the field, off to one side or the other , or straight back. When I get lazy or forgetful about tracking all the way to the glove sometimes I find myself looking for the ball off the bat.

I strive to see every pitch into F2's glove. Many "frames" do nothing to help me make a decision. The few skilled framers working with skilled pitchers may grab a few outside the strike zone as described in the rule book, but I have never had anyone barking about it.

My .02. YMMV

[BLWizzRanger]

I see this as the same as telling a batter to 'see the ball off of the bat.'  Virtually impossible.  Though the site line is different between a batter and umpire, you never see a batter turn their head or move their eyes to see the ball off of the bat. As with a batter,  I think telling a umpire to follow the pitch to the mitt is a way to tell them to concentrate more on the ball.

Personally, if I am not concentrating on the ball as it goes over the plate, I am calling a very low strike and balls on the outside over the chalk.  I am not following the ball to the mitt.  I am listening for it though.

[The Man in Blue]

My comments have caused a bit of confusion, and I should have been clearer.  Tracking the ball as a mechanic and watching the mitt are two very different things.  Tracking is not a mechanic taught to give you a better strike zone, it is taught to slow down your calls.  I would maintain tracking the ball to the mitt can be a pitfall.  As I pointed out with one of my flaws, I do my best not to, however on game 3 or 4 of the day and a catcher sitting too far back, my mind starts inserting itself when it watches the ball travel more.  

I also stand by my point of I don't give a darn what the catcher does with his mitt after the ball leaves the plate.  There is a rule that is very specific in EVERY code about what a strike is.  While our view and perspective of that defined area can change, no rulebook mentions anything about a strike having to do with the catcher.

 

15 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Tracking the ball all the way to the mitt is a widely taught mechanic, and has been for many years at all levels, from LL to Pro school. Not only does it help with timing, as others have alluded to, you use all of the information available about the pitch to help render a decision.

It does matter how the catcher receives the pitch, especially at the higher levels, particularly on borderline pitches. On close pitches that a catcher butchers, and I ball it at HS and above, if I hear anything form the coach, it's always yelling at the catcher for not catching the pitch. Usually they'll say something to the effect of, "you cost your pitcher a strike."

It absolutely does matter that umpires watch pitches to the mitt, and not just on U3K.

 

You can do what's easy or you can do what's right.  What's easy for you makes life harder for the rest of us and it continues to feed the beast of baseball ignorance that coaches feast on.  It is no different than a throw beating a runner to bag by a mile, so you call them out even though the fielder missed the tag by 6 inches.  You can do what's easy or you can do what's right.

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Tracking is not a mechanic taught to give you a better strike zone, it is taught to slow down your calls.  I would maintain tracking the ball to the mitt can be a pitfall. 

 

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

You can do what's easy or you can do what's right.  What's easy for you makes life harder for the rest of us and it continues to feed the beast of baseball ignorance that coaches feast on.  It is no different than a throw beating a runner to bag by a mile, so you call them out even though the fielder missed the tag by 6 inches.  You can do what's easy or you can do what's right.

Proper tracking will absolutely give you a better strike zone. Again, it's what's taught at every reputable clinic from LL up to pro school, and everywhere in between.

You're the one that is making things harder by spewing such nonsense as what you said in the first quote.

I suggest you attend a proper clinic, camp, or school before deciding what tracking is all about.

[The Man in Blue]

... and which of those "proper clinics, camps, or schools" teaches you to ignore the rules and do your own thing?

I'm glad the dozens of disreputable clinics, camps, or schools I have attended in the last 12-13 years haven't been one that teaches you to allow the catcher to call your strikes for you.  Difference of opinion.

[Velho]

Not arguing, I'm asking...

18 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Not only does it help with timing, as others have alluded to, you use all of the information available about the pitch to help render a decision.

Strictly in the context of calling a taken pitch a ball or strike, can you help me understand how action beyond the back of the plate influences deciding if the ball passed through the strike zone?

The two reasons that have been provided are to slow down your timing (ok, I can follow that) and

19 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

On close pitches that a catcher butchers, and I ball it at HS and above, if I hear anything form the coach, it's always yelling at the catcher for not catching the pitch.

The implied message seems to be "if you call it a strike on these, you'll be hearing it from the OC so ball the butchered borderline pitch". That's a way it can be read but maybe that's not what you meant?

[Mister B]

I use the catcher to help gauge where the pitch was. If it hits the glove above the catcher's head, it's probably high. Same with side to side. I also takes note of where the catcher is setting up. If he's already set up outside and reaches outside for the pitch, it's probably outside. It also lets me know that I may be taking a pitch to the body. 

[Richvee]

For those of you who call high school and above and claim the catcher shouldn’t influence your call…..Tell me how it goes next time you call a strike on a low breaking ball that just catches the knee at the front of the plate and F2 pancakes it into the dirt. 

[LRZ]

The eephus pitch always gave me problems, no matter where the catcher caught it. In another thread, Richvee, you mentioned another umpire saying something about umpiring to the dugout: an eephus pitch through the strike zone is a strike, but it surely won't look like one to the batting team's bench.