THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I thought you might find this interesting regarding the DH.  I found it at http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/DH#The_Phantom_DH

The Phantom DH

The DH listed in the starting line-up must bat at least once before being substituted, unless there is an injury or the opposite team’s starting pitcher has been changed. This rule was added after the 1980 season to close a loophole discovered by Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver: he would list one of his inactive starting pitchers in the starting line-up as a phantom DH, and then, when his first time to bat came up, Weaver could decide which of a number of players to use as a pinch hitter for his DH, depending on the situation (for example if there were men on base, if he needed a base-runner, etc). Pitchers Steve Stone and Dennis Martinez were used most often in this capacity. Boxscores from that time would list the pitchers as having played a game at DH, but after the amendment to the rule was adopted, these “appearances” were erased from these pitchers’ records.

Alright...let’s see.

Could not disagree more with #1.  I see no drop in tension whatsoever with multiple relievers.  If anything it builds the suspense.  As a manager it’s my job to use relievers in the highest leverage situations as possible, and that includes playing matchups.  If I want to use everyone in one inning, then I’m screwed for the rest of the game (and the rest of the game will go faster as well, if that’s what you want).  It’s my choice.

Same with #2.  Walks are very valuable.  If you want to walk someone, go ahead.  If you build your team so it’s Barry Bonds and a bunch of AAA players, that’s your fault.  If a pitcher is struggling with his control so much that he can’t get anything but a meatball over the plate, he shouldn’t be penalized further. 

I’ll have to think about #3 and #3b more.

Agree with #4.  In general (in baseball and in life) I support rules that eliminate judgment calls.  This is good for the batter.  And it’s safe to assume that batters won’t be intentionally head-butting fastballs to get the pitcher out of the game.

Rule #5.  Violently disagree if the “commit line” isn’t there.  Mildly disagree with the commit line version (mainly because it should be different for runners of different speeds).  Of course I can’t back this up statistically, but if I’m throwing over constantly, I’m distracted.  The one thing I don’t like is pitchers throwing over when the runner is basically standing on first, just to give a reliever more time to warm up.  So I would support a commit line in this case, except that would be very close to 1B (like a few feet).  This is similar to your rule (nearly the same) but would have a different intent.  I don’t see it as the runner going past the line to challenge the pitcher - I see it as him staying behind it to ensure that the pitcher can’t throw over and thus give the reliever more time.

Rule #6.  Nope.  I don’t like to see injuries, but this just seems so....wrong.  Besides, on close plays you may see _more_ injuries.  I’m picturing a catcher stretching like a first baseman, and the runner sliding in and breaking the catcher’s leg.

In general I’m all for tension and avoiding injuries, but it’s very difficult for me to advocate rule changes that would change the game significantly.  Rules like requiring a pitch be thrown in a certain amount of time, or not letting a pitcher throw to first if the runner is within 3 feet of the bag won’t affect strategy and really can only improve the game.

SirK: that Weaver has been involved in alot of rule changes!  (See: Clay Dalrymple.)

***

Brett: thanks for the considered reply. My response to yours follows:

#1: Can I ask when you started watching baseball?  To me, baseball was about 1 starter, and 1, maybe 2, relievers per game. And a game would be over in 2:30.  Right now, we already have a big change in play, with an average of 3 relievers per game.  I really don’t find all the reliever changes having any suspense, especially since we’ve gone from 10-man to 12-man pitching staffs in direct response to the managers doing all this.  I much prefer the platoon arrangements on the hitting side, than the “platooning” on the bullpen.

Given that a manager will always be managing some part of his team (the bench, the bullpen), I’d prefer the tiebreaker go to whatever speeds up the game.

#2: Again, from the Fans’ perspective, I don’t see it beneficial to have Vlad being intentionally walked.  I wouldn’t want a coach be allowed to prevent Wayne Gretzky from crossing the blueline (by having say two of his own skaters stay behind the blue line).  Any rule designed to prevent the best players from performing is a bad rule.  The intention of the walk rule is to force the pitcher to throw to the batter, not as something for him to exploit.

#5: Interesting.  You’d favor a pickoff line at say 5 feet as something that the pitcher is not allowed to throw to (if the runner is 0 to 5 feet), as opposed to say a pickoff line at 10 feet as something that the pitcher is permitted to throw to at will (if the runner is at 10 feet or more).

#6: Sure, now we’re just shifting the type of injuries and frequency of collisions.  The head-on collisions will virtually disappear, and any injuries associated to those.  And what will increase is the incidental collisions (like you are suggesting), and injuries associated to those.  I think if you were to ask catchers, they’d probably prefer the commit line.  In any case, we can stretch the home plate out so that there’s an extra say 6 inches for the runner to slide on (without touching the horizontal area).

Change #1: Your medicine is too strong for the ailment.  Instead of changing what’s inside the game, change what’s outside it: when a coach/manager visits the mound, they have 1 minute to throw the next pitch, no matter who throws it. 

You want to change the pitcher, have him ready before you go out there; if he needs a throw off the real mound, have him run in from the pen instead of walking, and skip to the good part of his entrance song if he can’t live without it. 

You want to just talk to the pitcher, fine, say what you want and get off the mound so he can throw the next pitch within 1 minute.

Greg/4: I’m worried about injuries, which is why I’m not a fan of time-based enforcement.  Not to mention that clocks and baseball never seem to work.

But, these multiple mid-inning relief changes is a recent phenomena.  So, my “change” is an “undo” of something that has infected the game.  Basically, get back to not allow such substitutions without outright banning it (for injury purposes).  We could limit it to one mid-inning switch per game and be done with it.  But, we have to worry about the pitcher throwing 40 pitches or being injured and managers exploiting the “health exception” to make the switch.

If you start with the idea that you absolutely want to ban the mid-inning relief switch, and have the constraint of the health of the pitcher, giving the batter an extra ball seems like the natural solution.  Again, given this premise.

Regarding substitutions, soccer allows only 2 subs per game (that still the rule?).  That seems rather draconian.  I’m sure there’s plenty of soccer players during a game who are on the field injured simply because they ran out of sub allowances.  Baseball is way over on the other side, allowing as many subs as possible.

The other sports makes their sub changes on the fly, because they don’t have injury concerns.  If NHL, NBA, and NFL allowed subs, but that you’d have to take a 2-minute timeout for the change to take place, they’d come in to automatically change that rule after the first game.

It just seems to pointless to me to have the mid-inning switch more than once.

Thanks for the reply also.  My responses:

#1 - I’m 28 and started watching baseball in 1986.  A lot of those early years I’ll chalk up to me being a little kid and not having a clue what was going on (my favorite player was Willie Randolph because his name reminded me of Rudolph, which reminded me of Christmas presents), so a better answer would probably be 1992 or 1993 (my favorite season ever, incidentally, because as Yankee fan, it was mind-blowing to look at the paper and see them in first place after them being so bad in previous years). 

Anyway.  I probably started a little too late to notice a huge change, or perhaps I was just ignorant of it.  I don’t think the reliever changes add _that_ much suspense.  I think they add a bit if you’re at the game, and don’t have much effect when you’re watching on TV.  But I don’t think they affect it enough to impose some kind of (no offense) arbitrary penalty. 

As you note, roster makeup has shifted in response to reliever usage.  I think I might even prefer a rule saying that there can only be 11 active pitchers on a roster at a time to penalties like this.  In general, most “penalties” (and as you note, time limits) just don’t seem right to me.  I know it’s pretty subjective.

#2 - “Any rule designed to prevent the best players from performing is a bad rule.” This is something I struggle with constantly.  Should the goal be entertainment?  Yes.  Should teams be allowed to execute strategies as they see fit?  Yes.  I really don’t know.  I want to see Bonds hit and not be walked, but there has to be incentive for the team to not walk him.  Your suggestion is certainly incentive, but I prefer more “organic” solutions, like surrouding him with better hitters.  In theory at least, the Giants have more of an incentive for Bonds to bat than MLB does (one, their success depends on him, and two, if fans are convinced he’ll always be walked, attendance could decline).  I think teams should be structured as their GMs see fit, and would prefer to let the Giants make that decision rather than the league. 

#5 - Well, of course your suggestion and mine are the same (but just differ on the length of the commit line).  My goal would be to prevent the pitcher from throwing over for reasons _other_ than keeping the runner close (the only legitimate reason that I can think of for throwing over).  Remember, we’re not just talking about stealing, but also getting a better jump on a ground ball, etc.  By standing on the base, the runner gets the chance to say “I am sacrificing my lead to force you to pitch to the batter, because I think you are so tired/inneffective that it will benefit my team.”

I don’t have any problem with legitimate throws to first, even if there are a lot. 

#6 - I think you’re right about what catchers would want.  It does seem wrong that some of the plays that are most likely to get a catcher hurt are the ones where his team is most “correct” (i.e. the ball beats the runner by enough of a margin that the runner’s only choice is to run him over).  It’s hard to say - again, having these things (line on the field, a “magic” force out) just seem weird.  Of course, I’m sure we’d say the same thing about many of the current rules if we were used to things the way they were before they existed…

I consider myself one is open to rule changes as long as they have a distinct purpose.  Yet I have problems with most of what you wrote.

Rule 1: I’m not too opposed to this, but how will you deal with pitcher injuries and fake injuries?  Wouldn’t we be better off to limit (or eliminate) the number of warmup pitches?  After your free mid-inning change, all further new pitchers must immediately start pitching.  This reduces the down time tremendously.

Rule 2: This rule won’t work, because pitchers will just “unintenionally” intentionally walk someone.  And what about intentional walks after a batter is already ahead 3-0?  I have no problem with intentional walks except for the fact that pitchers actually have to make the throws.  Why not just let a pitcher award the base without the unnecessary formality of throwing 4 balls?

Rule 3 (a&b): I may be in the minority here, but I hate watching pitchers bat and don’t mind the DH.  Of these 2 proposals however, I prefer the first.  Something about a player constantly moving around the lineup that is unappealling.

Rule 4: The way batters crowd the plate and lean into pitches, you cannot award 2 bases.  However, I like the automatic ejection for a ball to the head.

Rule 5: The commit line is an interesting solution to the pickoff problem, but how do you keep the line from getting covered in dirt, like the batters box lines

Rule 6: Why not just penalize runners for knocking over the catcher (provided they have the ball)?  An automatic out and ejection should do it.  This requires them to slide, just like at every other base.

Frank/8:

#1: What you are proposing would lead to more injuries.  We need the disincentive, but I don’t want a disincentive where the manager decides that he’s going to bring in a pitcher where the pitcher himself may not be ready.  So, the disincentive would be on the manager putting his pitcher down 1-0.

#2: I think you misread.  I make no distinction about the 4-0 intent.  4-0 is 4-0, regardless how you get there.

#5: I’m a baseball fan, not a groundskeeper!  (Is that from Airplane?)

Just putting links here for “trackbacks”:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/tht_tango2/

http://ballhype.com/story/the_hardball_times_changing_on_the_fly/

Thanks for your response

#1: I hadn’t thought about a manager bringing in a pitcher befores he’s warmed up, thats a good point.  My intent was to elimnate the 3-4 minute break while allowing a manager to make as many subs as he wants.  Are you also proposing the 1-0 penalty in the case when a pitcher injures himself?

#2: I missed that.  I’m still not a big fan of the 2 base walk as I don’t see the intentional walk being as much of a tension killer.  Also, I don’t like 4-0 being treated differently that 4-1 or 4-2, thats like saying (albeit to a lesser degree) that if a batter strikes out on 3 pitches it should count as 2 outs.

#5: Neither am I, thats why I asked.

Frank/11:
#1: yes, even if injured.  Otherwise, you need a judgement call.  In the NHL, goalie switches due to injury receive no preferential treatment. 

#2: the intent being that a pitcher must give the batter at least one hittable ball.  I think it was a travesty that I could create a chart in which there were so many situations where it was an easy choice to walk Barry Bonds.  That’d be like double-teaming Michael Jordan, and him not being allowed to pass the ball.  You have to give your best player *some* option to do something. 

Double-teaming someone in NBA, NFL, NHL means that someone else is wide open… AND that the player being double-teamed still has a chance to exhibit his talents. 

In MLB, that’s not the case at all.  The best player is prevented from hitting, and in the best players in the league cases, it’s a decided advantage to walk him.

All I’m saying is give him at least one strike.

#5: it’s a good point, certainly.

Another way I’d like you guys to think about these rules is this way: imagine that the rules that we proposed were actually in force since day one.

Someone else proposed the rules that we are familiar in the real world.  Would we switch?

For example, suppose that the rule always was that a second mid-inning relief change put the batter at 1-0.  Would someone suggest: “Hey, this is really preventing me from bringing in more relievers.  I’ve got 10 pitchers, but I want to have 12, and I want a LOOGY at least.  Let’s take out the disincentive.”

***

Would someone say: “Man, I can’t stand that Barry Bonds is such a good hitter.  What if we didn’t have to pitch to him, and make the walk penalty just one base, with no force advances?  This way, we prevent the best player to hit, especially in the World Series in the first inning.”

On these two rules, I can’t see how we’d “switch” to the actual current rules.

***

The DH is the DH, and regardless, someone won’t like it either way.  I can see how the one-and-done-DH would morph into the current Ortiz/Trafner DH (one dimensional full-time player).  So, you can go either way on that one.

***

The pickoff rule: you’d really have to be a fan of the 70s/80s to appreciate this.  Imagine someone says: “Why don’t we let the pitcher try to pick off the runner as often as possible with no penalty?” I think Fans would revolt at such a thought. 

This is the same kind of “let’s stop our skilled players from utilizing their skills” disincentive rule.  A speed skill is central to some players.  A pickoff skill is not central to the pitcher’s.

***

Would someone say: “I want to be able to knock the ball out of the catcher’s hands, even if he’s not blocking me at all.” Why the catcher and not any other player?  Simply because he has some tiny bit of equipment?  Again, would we actually switch to a rule to allow hitting catchers after going 100 years without?

***

Would someone say: “Hey, what if we let the pitcher hit the batter in the head, without ejecting the pitcher?  Those batters are crowding the plate too much, so this will provide a disincentive for them.”

Again, I can’t see this rule being implemented.

***

It goes back to how I concluded the article, that we’ve got this cultural bias, like the NHL did circa 1950, when goalies wanted to wear a mask, and their were ridiculed for not being “men”.  Would a rule switch today mandating no masks ever even be uttered?

I think for many of these issues we’re in agreement that there are flaws in the current state of baseball, just not how to fix them.

I could definitely see people wanting to be able to use more pitchers in an inning.  Imagine game 7 of the world series in the 9th inning and mid-inning reliever takes a ball in the leg getting hurt.  The next batter starts 1-0 and I guarantee some fans will call for the elimination of that rule.

Also, the hockey mask example is somewhat flawed since its a change in equipment, not how the game is played.

About post 12, I think the situations where its beneficial to walk a player are rarer than you make it out to be, it will only apply to the very elite player or during very late game strategy.  Also a batter who gets walked still has opportunities to impact the game with baserunning (much like your Jordan passing example). 

People intentionally foul Shaq because he’s less dangerous on the foul line.  NFL punters often kick the ball away from good returners, denying them a chance for a return.  These are team sports and the rules should reflect this.  I don’t think rules should cater to fans wanting to see the best players Why not let Pujols bat in all 9 spots and just pinch run when he gets on base?  Fans don’t want to watch Adam Kennedy.

Yes, but at least Shaq still has a chance at the line, even if he’s handcuffed (by himself).  Walking Bonds to put guys on 1B and 2B, with the runner on 2B being the goahead run means that there’s nothing really for Bonds to do.

The purpose of the walk rule is to act as a disincentive to the pitcher, so as to make him face the batter.  To turn it around as something he can exploit to his benefit can’t be a good thing.

As for the kickers kicking to the “weakest link”, that’s part of that game (similar to volleyball).  Baseball is setup so that everyone gets to take a turn to bat.  That’s part of its fabric.  The IBB (or 4-0 walk) is not something that we should be happy to see.

Another rule for you:
Passing padding/gloves to the 1B or 3B coach is not legitimate cause for a time out. If you wear body armor, you run with body armor, so help you God.

Every time I see someone hit a double, there’s about 40 pieces of equipment they peel off their body and hand to a coach. This is silly.

And another:
Any contact with the second baseman during a double-play beyond or above the bag causes the player running to first to be automatically out.

I’ve never understood why players should be allowed to try to disrupt the second baseman by getting their body in front, by sliding hard at the place the player is (even if the player is BEHIND the bag), and think it’s dangerous.

Sal, good suggestion about the 2b bag.  If the secondbaseman is behind the bag, no contact should ever be permitted.  That’s safe haven.  If the 2B is standing over the bag, then the runner is allowed incidental contact if he pops up from his slide.  And as long as the secondbaseman is not standing in front of the bag, then never should the runner’s feet ever touch any part of the secondbaseman.

I just noticed when looking for the rule about time between pitches that there was a change for the 2007 season. The pitcher is supposed to deliver the pitch (when there are no runners on) in 12 seconds. I was watching the end of the Yankees-Baltimore game and Johnson for the Orioles was doing this if the batter was quick enough. Chamberlain for the Yankees was taking 20-30 seconds between pitches. Also, does anyone know when the umpires started always constantly changing for new baseballs in the game? Further, what are all of the reasons a pitcher will rub up the new baseball for? When they rub it up, it really slows things down.

Time-based rules don’t work in baseball.  Asking the umpire to carry a stopwatch or count 12 mississippi in his head simply won’t work. He’s got other things on his mind.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/009AEBD90797F48E862574340012FE36?OpenDocument

Pujols has 91 PA so far this year, of which 12 were 4-0 walks (half of those were IBB).  That’s the equivalent of 85 4-0 walks per 650 PA.

I don’t mind a player being double-teamed, but handcuffed?  Yechh.  (Why don’t we allow the hitter to “intentionally sit” Mariano Rivera one PA per game?)

And, if we introduced the 4-0 two-base walk next year, in 10 years, few would want to go back to the old way. 

If we can survive the drastic rule change that is the “abomination” of the DH (and soccer can survive the drastic of all rule changes: the shootout to determine the World Cup winner!!), a minor rule change like this should be easy to sell.

It doesn’t have to be a two-base penalty.  But, something, anything, where a walk is still a negative to the defense.  Heck, the batter can just get the count reset.  4-0?  Pitch to me, you coward!  Reset the count to 0-0.  Another 4-0?  I ain’t walking.  Pitch to me coward!

Last week, I was watching the Mets/Nats, and in an obvious IBB situation, they pitched to David Wright.  He was at 2-1, and then decided to IBB him.  THAT I like.

I like a rule someone else proposed (similar in spirit to the DH rule in the World Series and interleague play): allow the home team manager (AL or NL) to decide if the DH is in effect for that game.  This will force Ortiz, Hafner, Edgar to play the field at times when they are on the road.  I prefer this rule, which has strategy involved, to the set-in-stone rule by league (as if AL/NL requires distinction, now that we have IL play).

To whoever mentioned this Discretionary DH rule, you’ve got a fan in Bill James:

I like it.  It would have major impact on the post-game call-in shows, that’s for sure.  Everytime the opposition DH drives in a run and the home team loses, it’s a story.  When you don’t use the DH and the player would have been at DH makes an error, there’s a story.  I think it would work.