What’s up with major league catchers catching a pitch off the plate and then quickly moving their mitt over the plate, in order to fool the umpire into thinking it was a strike? I’ve only been watching baseball regularly for 4 years now, after a long layoff in the 80’s and 90’s, but don’t remember this phenomenem from when I last watched. Is it a rather new development? Does it ever actually work? I would hope that it is a waste of time, or has major league umpiring gotten so bad, the umpires have to rely on the catcher to tell them where the strikes are?! I don’t think this is the case, but in any event, if I were an umpire I would be insulted by this, and if anything, inclined to call the pitch a ball. And, if the umpire sees the catcher move his glove in such a way, this would seem to indicate to the umpire that the catcher knows it was a ball in the first place…
Experienced catchers don’t move the mitt back into the strike zone. Mainly because they know that the home plate umprie doesn’t like such behavior.
A good catcher will just “frame” the pitch, i.e. catch it so it looks like he didn’t move his glove.
At least that’s the way I’ve perceived it with the pitcher/catcher/umpire dynamic. The calling of balls and strikes must be the hardest thing for umpires to do correctly.
And most major league umpires completely diregard the official rules when doing so. The rules give more-or-less objective standards for the strike zone; however, most umpires ignore them. This is a huge problem for baseball.
One of the tricks I’ve heard about is the savvy catcher changing where he catches the ball based on how high the pitch is. On a low pitch, he catches the ball far away from his body to put his mitt higher up than normal, making the pitch appear higher. The reverse would be true for a high pitch. Not sure if any of these things actually work, but it’s neat to think about.
Thanks, BobT, but this “framing” motion is precisely what I’m talking about. Can this possibly fool the umpire? Wouldn’t that
imply that he is looking at the mitt instead of the location of the ball? These questions are somewhat rhetorical (if there is such a thing). I don’t believe framing does any good; my main interest is in when and why/how this phenomenem started.
notcynical, BobT isn’t talking about moving his glove, he’s talking about framing his body in front of the plate to look like it was caught in the strike zone.
I imagine it started for the same reason many things start in sports - to get an edge. You’ll notice often times a catcher will, say, set up on the outside corner and the pitcher will make a mistake and the pitch will wind up on the inside corner. Now the pitch itself may cross the plate, but because the catcher had to reach back across to catch it, often times it will be called a ball. However, if a pitcher is on his game and nailing his spots, he will get more called strikes. Balls that smack the catchers glove without him moving look a lot better and make the umpires job easier, so they will get the benefit of the doubt.
If you’re seeing this regularly at the major league level, then it’s a reflection of a decline in the training and defensive skills of the current crop of catchers. No quality catcher moves the mitt in toward the plate or up/down to try to convince the ump that a pitch is a strike. As you suggest, umpires don’t like the implication that they can be fooled by such transparent tactics, and will tend to punish anyone that tries it. The best catchers set up in such a way that as long as the pitch isn’t way off from where it was supposed to be, they’ll be able to catch it square on, without moving the mitt (at least not perceptibly) – and if the pitch is where it was supposed to be, the umps have a tendency to call it a strike, even if it’s slightly off the plate or high/low.
I think that most umpires will give a break to the pitcher as long as he throws his pitch directly to the catcher’s target. Even if the catcher has set up outside of the strike zone.
I read a book by former major league ump Ron Luciano where he talks about catchers trying to steal calls by moving the mitt back into the strike zone after catching the pitch. Obviously the trick for the catcher is to do it without looking like you’re doing it. And you’re right, at least according to Luciano; if the ump catches you doing it, you can kiss your chances of getting any borderline calls goodbye.
That book was originally published in 1982 and he was an ump during the 70’s, so my guess is that this has been happening as long as baseball itself. 
Framing the pitch has been around for ages.
I was taught this when I was a wee Little League catcher, many, many, many years ago.
I think Nixon was president.
I do a lot of umping, at levels up to high school age.
At higher levels umpires will use the catcher’s mitt to help them with borderline calls. If the catcher sets up near the strike zone, and the pitch hits the mitt–it’s pretty much a strike. If the catcher has to turn his glove over (fingers down) to catch a pitch, it’s too low. Stuff like that. But pulling the mitt into the strike zone is worse than useless, as has been mentioned.
At lower levels (like 10-year-olds) the catcher will set up outside, the pitch will come inside, and the catcher has to dive across the plate to knock it down before it nails the umpire. So you’re better off ignoring the catcher.
Do you ever watch baseball on TV? To say what you said, is, with all due respect, ridiculous. ALL catchers do just such a thing. ALL CATCHERS do it. C’mon!!