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_rLwwIf 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.