THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I think you might be overestimating the value a bit. While a little person could draw significant walks and probably play in the field, albeit at a presumably low level, they almost certainly would cost their teams runs on the basepaths, as their speed would be significantly lower than even the slowest MLB players.

So, a team would either have to pinch run for them following walks and deal with the loss in value of having a wasted roster spot, or let them run the bases and deal with a loss in value there. Either way, the value of the player decreases.

How slow would the little guy be?  Could we be talking slow enough that he’d have trouble going 1st to 2nd on a single?

"Seeing that MLB pitchers throw ball 4 on 3-0 counts 35% of the time, I can certainly believe that MLB pitchers may have a tough time with the pin-point control they need. “

I would imagine their control would get a lot better if they were facing a batter that would have no chance against a 75 MPH, straight pitch.

If they’re that slow, I would think their fielding would be awful and cancel out any positive value from the walks they drew.  I guess they could play DH, but then what would teams do with their regular DH (ie - David Ortiz).
vr, Xei

I imagine that teams would use him as a late-inning, leveraged OBP threat.  I imagine Bonds could do the same at age 55.

I’d imagine they wouldn’t be that slow at baserunning.  Remember, they’re drawing walks purely by virtue of their height; they need no other skill at all besides running speed.  So of the entire population of people who are in the 3-foot range, you can literally pick the single fastest one to be your guy for something like this.  I’d bet such a person would be close to Kevin Millar speed.

I would think short legs would make even the fastest little person pretty slow.  I doubt a DH that needs a pinch-runner would be worth a roster spot.  Of course, you can always have a pitcher do the pinch-running, but you’d still need a defensive replacement. 

That said, I’d probably send a little person to the plate in almost all bases-loaded, 2 out situations late in close games, even if I have Pujols on my bench.  And I’d have him lead off late innings, too, to get the tying run on base or to the plate.

Go to the Amazon link for The Book, click “Look Inside” and do a search for “Table 50”.

Presuming that our new star hitter has a .500 OBP, all walks, it becomes pretty easy to figure out where he has the most impact.  Take the run value under NIBB and add that to the run value under K.  Divide by 2.  The more positive number, the more the impact.
You will get at least a +.10 run impact with:
- runner on 1B, 0 outs
- runner on 1B+2B, 0 outs

You will get at least a +.05 run impact with:
- bases empty and 0 or 1 out
- runner on 1B+2B, 1 outs
- bases loaded

You will lose more than you gain with:
- runner on 1B, 2 outs
- runner on 2B
- runner on 3B
- runner on 1B+2B, 2 outs
- runner on 1B+3B
- runner on 2B+3B

So, if you use him as a pinch hitter, you will be able to find where he can have a +.07 run impact per PA, if he has a .500 OBP.  That gives him +11 runs in 162 games.  In normal leverage, that’s +1.1 wins.  But, in clutch situations, you should be able to get that up to +2 wins.  That’s a 2 WAR player.  As a PH.

You’d have to couple that with a pinch runner though.  Which is fine, because you get a 2 WAR player.  As a PH!

Bad idea. This would just lead to more bullpen specialization with teams feeling compelled to carry a MOOGY (Midget One Out Guy) to pitch to the opposing team’s pinch walker.

Either that or Nick Swisher would become very valuable.

While acknowledging that a human is a human, I think this makes a mockery of the game.  The rationale behind defining the strike zone based on the batter’s anatomy is just convenience, based on the historical fact that baseball players don’t have a huge difference in height.

If I were in charge, I certainly wouldn’t ban short people, but I’d pass a rule that the strike zone has a minimum height, maybe whatever height it is when a 5’2” batter hits.

The idea that you should be able to take advantage of a loophole to get a guaranteed walk ... well, that’s not what baseball is about.

If anyone wants to run with the hot start and true talent level in regards to final wins and losses (I’m hoping Tango or MGL would be kind enough to stop by ^^) you can go to battersbox http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20090420093534359#comments

Phil,

What about the poor 6’10” hitter who has to put up with a large strike zone?  If you want to put limits, it has to go both ways.

And I disagree it’s a mockery.  As Justin points out, any negative reaction seems just prejudicial doesn’t it?  Your approach is an end-justifies-the-means.

And, I’d ban IBB to Bonds and Pujols before I’d put in your (effective) ban on short hitters.

The disadvantage experienced by 6’10” hitters is small compared to the artificial advantage the 3’2” guy gets.  If that weren’t true, MLB would already have made some kind of rule change for them.

And I don’t think my suggested rule change is an (effective) ban on short hitters ... it’s a change that fully allows short hitters to hit.  It just removes an artificial advantage that short hitters get *specifically because they are short*. 

In the NBA, short players have to shoot the same basket as tall players.  Why, in MLB, should short players not have to defend the same strike zone as tall players?  Or, at least, a strike zone big enough to not give the short player an artificial advantage that makes a mockery of the game?

BTW, is baseball the only sport where the rules discriminate by height? 

The only thing I can think of that comes close is that when I was a kid playing floor hockey, I think there was a rule that your stick couldn’t be longer than your height, or something like that.  That meant that the short people were prohibited from reaching the puck as far away than the taller people, although we probably didn’t realize it at the time.

That was discrimination *in favor* of the tall.  MLB is discrimination *against* the tall, making it easier to throw strikes to them.

Hockey used to have a rule where you couldn’t score with the stick above your shoulder, so tall players were allowed to knock down pucks that short players couldn’t.  But now it’s the height of the crossbar for everyone. 

What about just knocking the puck down with a high stick?  Is it still the player’s shoulder for that rule?

Matt/9 wins Comment of the Day, I love it.  As for Hizouse - I remember reading about someone with no legs who could do a sub-12 second 100 meter dash, running on two stubs of quads.  Sub-12 is probably faster than 75% of MLB players.  Of course, I can’t find this guy anywhere, because everything I search for just comes up with pages and pages of results about Pistorius.

Phil: suppose that baseball was invented by adults with stunted growth.  They created a strike zone that is knees to arm pits.  They made the rule of 8 balls for a walk, and 1 strike for a strike out.  The focus was on throwing easy pitches to hit so that the batters are focused on just hitting a ball almost as if on a tee.  Everyone in the community loved the game.

Then 6 foot adults see the game, love the idea, and make some changes to it, but they keep the knees to arm pits rule.

The inventors of the game see what the six footers have done with the rules, and love it.  They particularly love the fact that instead of 8 balls for a walk, it’s only 4.  And they are even more fascinated that you get 3 strikes for a K instead of 1.  They apply to play.

The 6 footers decide that letting the inventors play makes a mockery of the rules, because they never wanted the little guys to play with them.  So, they come up with a rule to effectively ban them.

Mockery is in the eye of the beholder.

The rule is not designed to effectively ban them ... the rule is designed to make sure they aren’t effective only because they’re short.  Indeed, the point is to *avoid* discrimination by height. 

Otherwise, you have a game where ANY short person can be effective.  There’s no skill involved in being an Eddie Gaedel, where all you have to do is stand there, wait for four or five pitches, run to first base, and be replaced by a pinch-runner.  The competition for the pinch-hitter spot wouldn’t go to the best hitter, or even the combination of hitter/short guy.  It would just go to the shortest person available.

In your story above, the 6-footers and the little people would get together and decide to make a rule change that puts them all on an equal footing ... such as a minimum strike zone size, or a different number of balls/strikes required for different size batters.

I guarantee you that, having developed a sport that they enjoy, the little guys would never say, “Hey, I love what you’ve done to the sport we love.  Let us pinch hit for you without ever taking the bat off our shoulders.  That would make us happy.  We hated the part about hitting the ball anyway.”

I think they’d hate the part about not being able to set foot on the field even more. 

Ok, suppose we agree that he needs to be able to something other than stand.  The challenge is to be able to design the rules so that it doesn’t act as a defacto ban, while at the same time not conferring a sporting advantage that they wouldn’t get in other sports. 

If we can agree on that, then I’m good with that.

The same could be said about weight.  What if instead of a 3 foot person trying to draw a walk, you send a 400-500# man to the plate to get hit by a pitch.  (In my mind I’m imagining they are large enough such that their body extends over the plate.)

The only thing I think you could do is switch to a standard strike zone size for all.  Which I think MLB would be reluctant to do, they seem to have this thing against change.

I don’t think exploiting a loop hole has any place in life let alone a game, but I’m sure the brass at MLB would come up with an artful way to close it.

Here’s another way to look at it ...

Suppose a bunch of small people got together to play hockey.  No problem.  Suppose they got together to play basketball.  No problem.  Suppose they got together to play football.  No problem.

But suppose they got together to play baseball.  Problem!  The game would never end: everyone would just keep drawing walk after walk after walk.

The rules of baseball, as presently written, are incompatible with small people.  That’s not discrimination, it’s just that the rules don’t work when your strike zone is that small. 

The solution: figure out how a small persons’ league would fix the problem, so they could have a competitive game, then apply that rule to small people playing in MLB.

I think a small pitcher would have as much or more trouble throwing strikes at the 60’6” distance.  Most likely, the game of baseball invented by small people would have shorter basepaths and a closer pitching mound.

This is my point.  These “loopholes” are not loopholes, not if you start with the idea that a human is a human.

If the idea is that a person should swing the bat say at least 50% of the time, then Adam Dunn and Jack Cust have found a “loophole”.

If the idea is that a person should see at least one strike with 1B open, then opposing pitchers have found a “loophole” in walking Bonds.

I would not change to a fixed strike zone for each player.  I don’t think there is much bias in the % of swings, based on height.  So, the current situation seems to work (for the current players).

The question is if there will be a bias among the very short players in % of swings.  In that case, you can change the rules for the strike zone to conform to whatever requirement you have for % of swings.

Phil/14:

“BTW, is baseball the only sport where the rules discriminate by height?”

Not at all.  Hockey limits the length of sticks; at 6’2”, I find the maximum length a little short.  And a guy like Zdeno Chara uses the same length stick as me.  Also in hockey, touching the puck with your stick above your shoulders is illegal.

I can think of a few other-height related rules - rugby, no tackling above the shoulders; soccer, a high kick is defined as having your foot above your waist; football, no chop-blocking below the waist.  Many more, i’m sure…

Hawerchuk/23, thanks!  One quibble: isn’t the stick length limit the *opposite* of discriminating by height?  If they varied it by how tall the player is, *that* would be discrimination, giving Chara a longer reach just because he’s taller.

"The rules of baseball, as presently written, are incompatible with small people.  That’s not discrimination, it’s just that the rules don’t work when your strike zone is that small.”

This explains why they don’t let children participate in youth baseball.

In children’s baseball, do they throw from 60’6”?

I’ve been thinking about how this would play out.  One possible rule would be to enforce the strike zone as if the batter were standing at his full height - the batter can crouch but he doesn’t get to shrink his strike zone to 2 inches.

Anything over the plate between say 8-10 inches off the ground and 2 feet off the ground is a strike.  Still a tough target, but pitchers need not exert themselves.  They can lob the pitch in there at any speed, as they want to get the little guy to swing.  This should be no more exerting than playing catch, which healthy athletes can do all day.  With enough practice, I think pitchers could prepare themselves to handle this to the extent that the gimmick wouldn’t be effective.

Another quick thought: why just pinch hitters?  When you’re on the road, just put in 9 small people in the batting order.  After 103 walks, you’re ahead 100-0.  Pull the little guys and put back your regular lineup, and coast to the win.

9 little people, 9 position players to replace them, that only leaves 7 spots for pitchers.  Don’t think that is going to work.

Khagendra Thapa Magar would be making a fortune, since he is only 24” tall (and 12 pounds).  He Pingping as well, since he is 29” tall.  Question would be, how much more should you pay someone 24” tall than someone 29” tall.

"9 little people, 9 position players to replace them, that only leaves 7 spots for pitchers.  Don’t think that is going to work.”

With a hundred-run lead, I think you could use a few of your “real” position players to pitch in relief as needed, and still be pretty successful.

Seriously, I think Rally is likely right that this wouldn’t work.  But let me test Tango’s non-discrimination commitment a bit:  suppose the strategy did work quite well, to the extent that 29 teams had one tiny pinch hitter for key PAs (LaRussa would still prefer a 13th pitcher).  Once a game, they would bat, draw a walk or K, and then leave the game.  Would we really want this?  Would it improve the game of baseball?  Would it improve the dignity of small people? 

Or would we in fact all be happy when the rules were changed to put an end to the charade?  I think probably so.....

It seems to me that Baseball has created a “solution” without really seeing if there is a problem and its (and Phil’s, to an only slightly smaller extent) rule is blatantly discriminatory.

IF Phil’s 100-0 scenario was a real threat, then I agree that something would need to be done.  certainly, hopefully, that something wouldn’t be something that 1. outright banned short people (MLB) or 2. effectively banned short people - including the extraordinarily rare, but conceivable, short person who might be good enough at baseball irrespective of his height (Phil’s).

I just am not willing to concede that there is even a problem, however, and so I certainly don’t see why there needs to be a facially discriminatory rule.  I can clearly recall video of an MLB pitcher pitching some high loop pitch to an MLB batter.  The sort of pitch that would land on, or very near, the plate if allowed to land.  There may be other options for pitches that would more likely than not (and that is all you really need) be a strike against even very small strike-zones.  If that is the case, then you don’t need the rule.  Shouldn’t we insist that MLB reasonably establish that a problem exists before we entertain, much less accept, a ban on a particular genetic class?

I still wonder how a pitcher would do if he knew going into the game that a little person could potentially be staring him down from the on-deck circle, and prepared soft-toss target pitching just in case.

If it is that impossible to throw strikes to such a zone, and the 103-0 lead in the top 1st is a possibility, then there has to be a ban, or a rule change that serves as an effective ban.  Otherwise it’s not baseball. 

It’s just a frustrated giant throwing pitch after pitch that nobody ever swings at and a parade of little people walking around in a square for days on end.  That’s not a sport, and it’s not something anybody would even care to watch, at least once the novelty wore off.

At this point people of normal height have to throw up their hands and admit that because of the strike zone, we just are not capable of competing as offensive players in baseball compared to our smaller brethren.  Since we are the disadvantaged group, we should be allowed to have a league of our own, like the women of the WNBA have.  After all, nobody is complaining that they should be forced to accept men into the league are they?

There is nothing stopping a league of little people to form, probably if it does it would have to feature 40 foot pitching mounds and 60 foot basepaths.  And that is where the dominant baseball talent will play.  6-footers will just have to be happy with their protected but inferior MLB.

How well could a little person take a 95mph fastball to the chin?

Rally, the lovely ladies of the WNBA are not a “disadvantaged group.” I think most women would be offended by this statement.

The success of the WNBA has shown that there is a market for women’s professional sports. I would love to see a women’s professional baseball league.

My #1 issue is that Purpura wanted to do this, but that he was effectively banned from doing it.  Selig has an opinion on the matter when he should have none.

Girls playing in the NHL is a possibility, eventually.  Girls in training camp has happened a few times.

Baseball is afraid that, unlike a girl in the NHL who has to be able to skate, move, pass, or hit, the little guy in MLB can play (and be effective) by simply standing there.

So, we can agree that the game of baseball is only baseball is the batter swings.  How often he has to swing depends of course.  Ideally, the strike zone should be set so that he should swing at least one-third of the time.  If he doesn’t, then there is something wrong with the strike zone, and it should be altered.  Having a minimum strike zone to this effect is perfectly acceptable to me.

The IBB rule needs to be revised, because in no way at all is it baseball for the opponent to be able to prevent Barry Bonds to hit a ball in the World Series when it’s his time up.  And in no way is it baseball if the pitcher wants the batter to swing but the (little) batter refuses.

In any case, in no way at all should Bud Selig be in a position to sign off on a little guy playing, if Tim Purpura wants him to play.

I think Tango has hit the nail on the head this time: there is something wrong with the strike zone.

Specifically, the strike zone is based on the size of the hitter.  It shouldn’t be.  It should be the same for all hitters, just like football goalposts, and hockey nets, and so forth.

Using the player’s body as a proxy for the strike zone is a matter of practicality: the hitter’s body is readily visible.  There is no purple hologram three feet high that can be suspended in the air for every batter (or at least, there wasn’t in the 19th century).  So the slight unfairness of a slightly smaller strike zone for smaller players was considered a reasonable price to pay, because otherwise balls and strikes couldn’t be called consistently.

However, it no longer becomes a reasonable price to pay when it screws around with the game.  When

a) a player gets a huge advantage in the rules because of his height, and
b) the height is the ONLY thing that makes him or her a “good” “baseball” player, then

that doesn’t enhance the game, it just magnifies the original flaw.  What do you call it when an specific enforcement of a rule violates the spirit of the rule?  It’s a loophole.

If the intent is to not discriminate against small people, then we should keep in mind that the strike zone rule, as currently written, is explicitly discriminatory in FAVOR of short people.  By insisting on a minimum strike zone height, we are REMOVING most of that discrimination.

I am certain that any player who can hit at the major-league level with a league average strike zone will be in the lineup, regardless of height, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

Here is a related thread, with a link to John Walsh’s 3-0 count article:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_3_0_count/

And on another related note:

http://www.gocomics.com/overboard/2009/04/23/

I just don’t get this discussion. How far can a 3’2” hitter hit an 80mph fastball? Knowing that the ball cannot be hit very far and that the defense will have a fairly long time to retire him, the equation is reduced entirely to the pitcher’s control/command, and I find it hard to believe that, against an opponent who isn’t swinging and has nothing to gain from swinging, a major league pitcher throwing for the middle of the plate can’t get it into the proper height range 3 times before failing four times. There are, to be sure, exceptions, but what exactly is wrong with a team deciding it wants to use a roster spot on a player who will just be called upon to draw walks from the Greg Millers of the game?

Pitchers do indeed miss the strike zone a fair amount on 3-0 counts, but they would miss it a lot less if they were not concerned with the consequences of a swing.

I don’t disagree with criticizing the height-dependence of the strikeout zone, and certainly the propensity for an exaggerated crouch/stance is at issue. I fear such a discussion veers toward conflating baseball with MLB. A standard, batter-height-independent strike zone might “help” MLB, but it is bad for baseball, which I always thought of as a game designed to be inclusive where everybody gets a chance at the plate. The batter-pitcher matchup is not the same as the shooter-goal matchup; I don’t see the need for standardization. While the criticism is well-taken, I think the counter-arguments are strong and I’d conclude on the side of the height dependent zone.

Phil, you can’t single out the one thing that is “discriminatory in FAVOR of short people” and act like it’s a big charade. I think that’s just a sort of objectivity fetishism or something. Literally everything else in the game strongly disadvantages small people. Your 60’6” retort above was exactly my point: there are many variables in the game, and none of them mean that the game is only for one group of people or another, or one definition of a “person” or “player.” You’ve premised all of your remarks on excluding the subversive element of short players; why cannot we premise our theories of baseball on inclusion? I think it would make more sense to just get rid of pinch-hitting, pinch-running, and defensive replacements. If you’re going to allow specialization, you can’t take it away just because there are people considered by you to be somehow fundamentally not baseball players.

Greg Maddux is up 0-2 on Eddie Gaedel. I think Gaedel is swinging at the third pitch, and I think I would LOVE to see Maddux field the ball. No matter the size of the strike zone, and no matter the frequency of the batter swinging, the batter pitcher matchup is baseball, and the ability of the batter to swing is always inextricable from it.

Further, it strikes me as odd that the call here is for some fundamental change to preclude the scourge. How about some data? Why doesn’t baseball allow short players in the minor leagues or spring training or wherever so we can see if there is anything to the hype?

MLB pitchers say it would be tough on them as per the original link in this thread:

Dana Kiecker, former Red Sox rookie of the year, faced a team of short hitters coached by Gallagher two summers ago and was so worn out after one inning that he had to be removed from the game. It was his opinion that a little person could make an impact in the majors. “Look, if they’re going up there one after another, a pitcher might be able to strike some guys out by getting in a rhythm, but even then it’s going to be tough,” said Kiecker. “If you just sprung one on a pitcher, forget it. That’s too hard a slot to hit.” Similarly, Twins All-Star closer Joe Nathan and single season save leader Francisco “K-Rod” Rodriguez believe it’s a plan that has real potential. Said Rodriguez: “First of all, I’m not going to be able to throw strikes. No way. My target for the hitter is very different so my approach would be completely messed up. He’s going to get a walk immediately. I’d rather face Barry Bonds in the bottom of the ninth.”

So, the K-Rod quote is very telling: not only does he not believe he can hit the strike zone that well, it may have a short-term effect to the following batter.

There is nothing in the RULES of baseball that discriminates against short people.  However, there is one thing in the rules that discriminates IN FAVOR of short people, and that’s the strike zone.

It’s not cherry-picking.  It’s literally the only thing.

And it so happens that the discrimination is so significant that, without changing the rules, the visiting team would always win by at least 100 runs. 

Can we all agree at least that if we want some kind of affirmative action in favor of short people, we have to change the rules at least somehow?

I sometimes can’t believe you guys are serious about this.

I can’t see the interview with our new hero from the office, but I can see an image:
http://www.fox43.com/pages/landing_news/?Extended-Interview-with-Dave-Flood-York-=1&blockID=266212&feedID=2569

I can’t even see his knees or his belt.  Dude is much shorter than I thought.  At least his legs are alot shorter than I thought.

The only thing I will agree to is that each batter should swing at least one-third of the time, given a large enough sample size, for any particular situation.

This means that you’d need to expand the strike zone for the little guy, and that means you’d need to have some disincentive to keep from walking Bonds (and will likely soon become Pujols) all the time.

I will say it is completely ridiculous to IBB Vladimir Guerrero.  For a guy who expands his personal strike zone like nobody else, that the pitcher STILL decides that that enormous strike zone is still not big enough for him, then sorry… that’s not baseball.

I mean, how much bigger could you make the strike zone, so that you would never IBB Vladimir?

Tango/44: 1/3 is as far as you’d go, huh?  Do you mean an average MLB pitcher with an average MLB caliber pitch?

If he’d hit the strike zone 1/3 of the time pitching normally, then, soft-tossing against a little guy, maybe he’d hit the strike zone, say, 2/3 of the time. 

That means the short player would strike out 82.7% of the time, and walk 18.3% of the time.

That’s not good enough for MLB, so no short person would ever make a roster.

Tango, are you comfortable with that?

Sure. 

Just as I don’t believe that a woman MUST play MLB, neither do I believe that any subgroup of the human race must play MLB either.

What I do believe is that the opportunity to play should be there, if they’re good enough.  And that Bud Selig should have no opinion on the matter if Tim Purpura wants to do something about it.

The standard in MLB is a personalized strike zone.  That’s a given.

Any baseball is about the batter swinging at pitches.  Just standing there is not baseball, be it our new hero or Barry Bonds.

"There is nothing in the RULES of baseball that discriminates against short people.  However, there is one thing in the rules that discriminates IN FAVOR of short people, and that’s the strike zone.

It’s not cherry-picking.  It’s literally the only thing.”

No, Phil, your use of “discrimination” is what makes it cherry picking. To say that the purpose of the batter-height-dependent strike zone is ‘affirmative action in favor of short people’ strikes me as objectionable for several reasons.

Firstly, it distorts fundamental aspects of the batter-pitcher matchup. The batter-pitcher matchup is not like a shooter-goalie matchup, where the pitcher gets an objective target to hit and the batter gets . No, the pitcher is analogous to the goalie, in that the pitcher has to stop ‘shots’ from every hitter, and the approach of the pitcher is attuned to the specific strengths of each hitter.

Second, it presumes a standard of big and strong as a universal norm for baseball or at least MLB. I don’t know why the presumption should be that MLB players should be the biggest, tallest, strongest, or whatever. Certainly, it seems odd to push this standard given the amount of clamor over the PED era.

Third, it is an incoherent concept of what constitutes the sports’ rules. If the field were smaller, short players would be much more valuable. Skills that may be associated with being short, like avoiding tags, are in the game but are a very, very small component of the game at the major league level. This is because of the size of the field. The size of the field is governed by many rules, and I don’t understand how having 90’ basepaths, 60’6” from the mound and 300+ feet to the fences are not affirmative action for bigger and stronger players. These are not natural, God-given numbers. They are rules, rules that are affirmative action for bigger players.

The strike zone is not a rule designed to let short people play. It’s a rule that defines the contours of the game and what the batter-pitcher matchup is. It does let short people play better than they would in a game that had even more structural barriers against short people playing, but I don’t see what this has to do with “discrimination” or “affirmative action.” Perhaps you should define these terms if your argument hinges upon that, but I don’t see how it does.

“And it so happens that the discrimination is so significant that, without changing the rules, the visiting team would always win by at least 100 runs.”

I don’t even begin to understand this line of reasoning. Is the argument that there’s a near infinite supply of extremely short players and that baseball will race to the bottom, have eight 3-4’ tall players on each team and somehow only the visitors will be able to take advantage? You expect “at least” 103 walks before 3 K’s?

Tango cites Dana Kiecker being unable, at age 47 or so and 16 years after his less than two years as a major leaguer, to get through an inning against a lineup of exclusively very short players. That’s a pretty far cry from constituting evidence about the effect on an MLB game or pitcher. Tango also cites K-Rod. Well, why *shouldn’t* teams have the choice to use specialists to wear out K-Rod (and, you know, K-Rod could just IBB them with soft tosses and focus on the next batter, and if the other team has four short PH ready to go you can always use a pitcher who is not, you know, infamous for having lousy control to go with the electric stuff!)? Can we at least ask Jamie Moyer’s opinion (or the opinion of someone who is not infamous for walking batters in high leverage situations) before making a verdict that is based on a sample size of 1 MLB PA in a “gotcha” stunt 58 years ago?

The point is not that I don’t appreciate Phil’s concerns. The point is that his concerns are entirely theoretical, not grounded in data or research but rather in a smattering of anecdotal evidence, and are things that can be addressed in other ways:

“Can we all agree at least that if we want some kind of affirmative action in favor of short people, we have to change the rules at least somehow?”

Again, if you truly want affirmative action for short people, maybe you should consider changing the rules so that they get to contribute through fielding and pitching!!! Let’s go over the scenarios that are actually in play:

a) Status Quo. As far as I can tell, there is no actual height minimum; the rule is just that MLB has to approve all contracts and presumably will (or, for Purpura, did?) not allow a player a contract if they think the player is a walk specialist. The game structurally favors strength, speed, and being tall, and the variable strike zone mitigates the dominance of taller players.

b) MLB rules that it will not take height into consideration in determining the validity of contracts, and approves the contracts of walk-specialist short PH. Teams that could sign up a whole mess of them could, I suppose, gain some sort of competitive advantage, and teams whose pitching staff had fewer control pitchers would lose some competitive advantage.

c) MLB creates a standard strike zone that does not vary depending on the height or the crouch/stance of the player. Teams with tall sluggers gain a competitive advantage, and Calvin Pickering and Hee Seop Choi make their triumphant returns. Matt Wieters grows a Chuck Norris beard and gets his own action drama on FX in the offseason.

Now, I must point out, I don’t see how scenario c) really helps those who insist on swinging as a prima facie value to protect. Tall players would swing much less in c) than they do in a) or b), and their presence on rosters would likely be much higher than the presence of short players on rosters in b) because even the tall and lumbering can probably play better in the outfield corners than the very short. The trickle down of option c) to other levels of baseball also raises many alarming issues. I’m fine with the fixed strike zone for whiffle ball leagues, but it’s not good for baseball.

The difference between a) and b) is that under b) the standard roster construction of teams could shift, I suppose. Very short players would get more PA if the strategy could prove successful in AA and AAA, though it’s not as if that’s happened.  But what is the scenario, given no change in the 25-player roster and the 9 fielder alignment, where very short players dominate the game? The fear that they will dominate *individual PA’s* has transformed somehow into a fear that they will dominate the game (in some of the prose on this thread, anyway).

It’s pure and simple: short players are a check on wild pitchers. The game has, especially in the current era of high offense, gravitated toward power pitchers and power hitters. Very short PH, if they do have a radical effect on roster construction, will simply redistribute the relative value of other players slightly. They create no fundamental distortion, and they are not a different category of human beings. This is just a question of whether all players whose strength is the size of their strike zone and not their ability to swing through it are automatically disqualified.

In the linked article, Silver says a PH with a guaranteed walk is more valuable than Pujols. But an ACTUAL PLAYER does not resemble this straw-person. The lead-off 3’2” player can be countered by starting a reliever with good control and then putting the starter in for the second inning or second batter. Every insertion of such a player into the starting lineup has an obvious counter from the opposition, and it’s not as if this player is taking up a free roster spot. A 3’2” PH is a tactic, not a strategy for stealing baseball games.

The scenarios where a team starts to make use of multiple very small players are of course limited by the tremendous tradeoff in roster spots available, unless these players were deployed as fielders (in which case, the argument that they are fundamentally not baseball players looks substantially weaker) where they are likely to give back substantial value.

If scenario b) truly does cause major changes in the game, then it is not as if there could not be other rule changes to mitigate the impact. I don’t agree with the reasoning that a prohibition on certain types of players should be allowed because dealing with their presence would require some amount of thought and adaptation.

But if there’s an insistence that, in order for MLB to not arbitrarily omit walk-specialist PH, some other prejudicial rule change ought to go in effect, I think there is an obvious compromise that makes a heck of a lot more sense than a fixed strike zone. Just make a minimum height for the strike zone. What really is at issue is that a very short player crouching can reduce the size of the strike zone considerably. If the rule is that the strike zone for a player stretches from the knees to the letters or x inches above the knees, whichever is higher, then I think that is a pretty fair compromise. To me, 17” by 17” seems like a pretty elegant solution; if a pitcher can’t hit a strike zone that’s only as tall as it is wide 3 times before missing it four times, I don’t see why the game should prohibit teams from having the option to exploit this weakness.

I think we are agreed about a minimum strike zone, as I noted earlier:

Having a minimum strike zone to this effect is perfectly acceptable to me.

I enjoyed fifth’s position regarding that having the short player will change the balance of pitchers such that you will find less wild pitchers on teams.