THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I would be willing to bet the DH rule is accepted by the clear majority at this point.  Or at least, the majority of AL fans.  I don’t think NL fans can really offer an unbiased opinion since they’ve never really experienced it.  Why is it clearly not working?  Anything that’s going to help Ortiz, Manny, and likely Vlad and a host of others, spend a few more years hitting baseballs is probably a good thing for the sport.

I meant that it’s not working from an acceptance standpoint.  There is no rule change in any sport that is still being discussed with such scorn 35 years later.

Heck, even World Cup soccer shootout gets less derision than the DH, and at least the shootout is an actual bastardization of the sport.  The soccer one is a legitimate complaint, far more legitimate than anything else.

You’d think MLB fans were the equivalent of the soap opera watchers, getting into a tizzy about every little thing that happens.

Tango - I am having a hard time understanding your position.  You critcize MLB for “bending over to the vocal minority” that is reluctant to change tradition, but then seem to be suggesting that that is what MLB should do on the DH.

Peter: I should have said the tiny vocal minority.

Fans against replays, in 35 years, would be part of a tiny vocal minority.  Therefore, today, you have a minority group that is made up of the tiny vocal faction that truly despises replays (now and forever) and the rest of the minority group that don’t know any better today, but if they see it in action, will be a supporter eventually.

For the current version of the DH, there is no tiny vocal minority that we can safely ignore.  There are legitimate concerns here, not the least of which is two separate rules.  A home-manager DH rule should alleviate that concern.  In 35 years, the tiny vocal minority will still be there, while the rest of the minority group against the current rules of the DH will come around.

***

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIsrmPM4i1js7x_GrGgNvUSTDbhwD92Q75800

Replay rules for some major sporting events

By The Associated Press – 18 hours ago

Begins with series that open Thursday. Applies to home run calls: fair or foul, whether the ball left the playing field, whether there was fan interference. Decision whether to use replay is made by umpire crew chief. After reviewing video collected at Major League Baseball Advance Media in New York, the crew chief decides whether call should be reversed.

NFL

Began in 1986, not used from 1992-98. Applies to boundary calls involving sideline, goal line, end zone, end line and uprights, plays involving pass completions, incompletions, interceptions, ineligible receivers, forward-pass and fumble calls, whether runners are or aren’t down by defensive contact, forward progress on first downs, touching of kicks, number of players on field, and recovery of loose balls. Under the current system, which began in 1999, a coach gets two challenges per game and can get a third if he is successful on both. If he is unsuccessful, his team loses a time out. In the final two minutes of each half and throughout overtime, there are no coach challenges and a replay official in the press box initiates reviews. The referee, after viewing a monitor on the field, makes the decision. He has 60 seconds to make a decision.

___

NBA

Began in 2002-03. Used to decide determine whether a shot was taken before time expired, whether a foul occurred before time expired, and whether 24-second shot clock or eight-second backcourt violations occurred before a shot. Starting with the 2007-08 season, referees were allowed to use replay on severe flagrant fouls and after an altercation to determine whether punches or other unsportsmanlike actions occurred. Referees decide whether to use replays.

___

NHL

Began in 1991-92. Is used to determine whether the puck completely crossed the goal line, to determine whether it entered the net in compliance with the rules (was not intentionally batted in by a player’s hand, kicked in, or batted in by a stick that was above the height of the crossbar), to determine whether it crossed the line before the net was dislodged, to determine whether it crossed the line completely before time expired in a period and to determine whether the puck deflected directly into the net off an official. Decisions are made at a central location in the NHL’s Toronto office.

___

Grand Slam tennis tournaments

Began with the 2006 U.S. Open. A Hawk-Eye system is used to decide close line calls, reconstructing the ball’s most likely path by combining its trajectory using images from cameras. Players get three incorrect challenges each set.

I don’t understand why you dismiss the “tiny vocal minority” against replay, but seem to think that the DH rule is the root of all evil.  I just don’t get that impression.  I think some old sportswriters don’t like the DH rule, but as far as the fans who fill the seats or watch on TV… do you really think they abhor the DH rule?  I guess we’re both speculating here, but I just don’t think anyone really gives a crap.  And if the DH rule gives us David Ortiz, and a few more years of Manny, Frank Thomas, maybe Vlad, etc… I think it’s pretty darn good for baseball.

Actually, I think the “evil” part of the DH rule is not the existence of the DH, but the fact that the NL and AL have different rules for the DH.  That is what I am against.

I’d be perfectly happy to have the DH all the time.  This is my preference.

I’d be content if the “home manager decides on the DH” rule, if it turns a vocal minority into a tiny vocal minority.

Or the “one and done” DH, of treating him like a pinch hitter, without forcing the pitcher out of the game.

If the home manager decides on the DH, good DHs (e.g. Edgar, Ortiz) will mostly play at home while bad DHs (Vidro anyone?) will mostly play on the road. At least that would happen if the managers have the courrage to bench a player when Boston comes to town.

I personally think, the DH rule and that it applies only in one league adds an additional quirk to Baseball that makes the sport more likeable.

vj: suppose they went to a uniform DH rule (the one in the AL also is used in the NL).  We have interleague play every year.  Twenty years later, what would you think of a proposal to have a DH be removed in all NL parks?  A quirk?

This is the point of this thread, if you see things from that particular perspective of “what if you changed things from what you are used to, then go back to what you are used to”.

I don’t see how the DH rule for one league only could ever get adopted as a good rule in a world of interleague play.

Most of the scorn for the DH seems to come from fans of NL teams who are looking for some reason to declare their league morally superior. If the DH had been adopted by both leagues, I’m willing to bet that only a tiny minority would want to abolish it now.

As for the suggestion of making it the home team’s choice, the equilibrium result would probably be (as someone else suggested in the previous thread on that topic) that all teams would move toward AL-style roster construction, and the DH would end up being used in almost all games, as managers would err in favor of protecting their pitchers in all but the most extreme cases.

(And, yes, my own AL bias is probably showing here.)

Most of the scorn for the DH seems to come from fans of NL teams who are looking for some reason to declare their league morally superior.

It isn’t morally superior; it’s esthetically superior.

Giving us more Vlad, Hurt, or Papi ... or before that Reggie, Oliva, or Singleton, but at the cost of changing the offense vs. defense balance is not definitively good.  It is a choice of esthetics, neither necessarily good or necessarily bad.

I guess I’m in the “tiny minority” with regard to instant replay.  If they can fix incorrect calls quickly and with near 100% certainty, then fine.  But the NFL system still gets calls wrong and causes unreasonable delay.  (I’m not sufficiently familiary with tennis, basketball or hockey to have a reasoned opinion.) If the NFL went back to pre-1986 rules, I’d be happy with it.

Replay doesn’t effect the play of the game - it’s a tool to get the calls right. I have no problem with that.

I guess I’m one of those biased NL guys, but I never cared for the DH, and it is a change in the playing rules. If you play defense, you should bat. It’s worse in scholastic and some amateur leagues, using the DH for anyone (my ss can’t hit, and my slugger can’t field, so let’s have the slugger DH for the ss). I know that’s an extreme example that doesn’t occur in pro ball, but it illustrates what I feel, that a true baseball player takes his turn both in the field and at bat. It’s the combination of all those things that makes baseball players so much individuals, compared to other sports.

I watch the NFL every week, never missing a Steelers game. What bugs me about the NFL is changing rules almost every year (you can’t do that this year!), or things that alter how the game is played, depending on the situation. Example, the clock used to stop when you ran out of bounds. Now it only does inside of two minutes. Why should the last two minutes have different rules than the rest of the game? Football should be football. Don’t change extra inning rules, let baseball be baseball.

Tango,

I agree with most everyone else that your DH proposal would result in a de facto AL style DH. Professional courtesy by managers would soon require that you never choose to make the other guys pitcher come to the plate. You might as well just declare the DH rule in full effect.

Even though I am an AL fan, I do not like the DH rule for three reasons. One is the same as dlf in that it is more esthetically pleasing to have the same nine men on the field also bat. The second, related (and also partly esthetic) is there is more strategy involved when a pitcher has to come to the plate. Benches are more important and the manager has more interesting decisions to make (that can be second guessed ). Lastly, the original reason for the DH is gone. There is plenty of offense now. 

If you really wanted to make the DH a more interesting strategic choice then why limit it to being just for the pitcher. If you had a good hitting pitcher playing then maybe you could DH for the SS instead. Then the Willis’ and Owings’ of the game could go out and mash and we wouldn’t have to suffer through a Zito at bat.

Cheers,

Matt

I actually support instant replay because my hope is that it actually speeds up the game.  The current way of the manager coming out to argue, the umpires huddling together, an umpire going to the home team and then to the visitor team at which point one will be very upset and one will be happy inevitably leads to further arguing from the one who is upset and it delays the game even longer. 

That is the only reason I support it.  I don’t care if they get every call right.  It’s not a perfect game and it’s been getting calls wrong forever.  I’m not a traditionalist, I just don’t care if they get calls wrong.  Big deal.  Over time they even out so there’s no difference in the number of calls one team gets.  It’s less of an issue to me than the unbalanced schedule. 

The only problem I have is that they aren’t going to get all the calls right with instant replay so error is still going to play a part in the game.  Getting more calls accurate is good, but there are still going to be many that aren’t so it really doesn’t change a thing.  All they’ve accomplished is adding a replay system that really does nothing other than correct a few calls while leaving a few incorrect.  We’re in the same shape tomorrow that we were today and every day before that.

"I agree with most everyone else that your DH proposal would result in a de facto AL style DH.”

I don’t think that is the consensus.  Indeed, the consensus seems to be that the DH would be used somewhere between 50-80% of the time.  I can run a poll tomorrow to see.

In any case, there is no way in h-ck that managerial courtesy will let the Nationals manager in Washington allow David Ortiz or Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas to bat DH.  No way.

When it’s that lopsided, courtesy goes out the window.  You can get a gimme putt at 6 inches, but not at 6 feet.

I would prefer no DH. If the DH rule continues, no player should be allowed to DH more than 40 times a season. The DH should be especially for players that have minor injuries or having “a day off” from the field. I don’t like seeing DH’s like Thomas or Ortiz.

Just for the record, if pitching changes were restricted I would definitly be pro them restrictions beeing relaxed.

More pitching changes gives more chances for specialisation and this in my opinion both makes for a more effective game and more interesting strategy.

In general I like the rules to be written in a way that limits the extent that teams are “slaves to talent” and lets there be a good balance between sound strategy and smartness on one side and simply having the best athletes on the other. And in case there is an imbalance I prefer it to help the smarter teams rather than the talented ones.

Bjorn: can you tell me when you started following baseball?

I ask because I grew up watching baseball in the late 70s, and to me, in the 70s and 80s, it was a live-or-die with your pitching talent, with strategy on the hitting side (platoons, etc).

These days, it’s live-or-die with your hitting talent, with strategy on the bullpen side.

To me, the balancing act that the manager must live through would be better spent pre-game (i.e, playing with your platoons) than in-game (i.e., mid-inning relief changes).

The most effective games are those that don’t have the pace of the game upset by player changes during the game.

Just a few years ago, baseball wasn’t really availible in sweden until the proliferation of channels caused by digital cable and satelite TV.

And my interest originally came from beeing a poker player. Basicly my interest in poker and gambling theory led to an interest in baseball theory and from there I started to watch the games.

So I guess I am hardly a representative fan…

Also (to me) one of the “selling points” of baseball is the slower pace (including breaks) that allows ample time for introspection and reflection and realy thinking deeply about what is going on.

looking at the definition of ‘quirk’ in the wiktionary (link), I think this describes the situation w/r/t the DH in the two leagues quite well.
You have a point about interleague play. That did not exist at the time the DH rule was established in the AL.

Since the majority of the people who dislike the DH don’t like it because of aesthetic reasons (or some kind of inability to let the past go), I think that’d be a pretty silly reason to get rid of it. Then again, I think pitchers hitting is about the least interesting in sports this side of watching a bunch of dudes run around kicking a ball for 90 minutes without anything significant happening. There might be more strategy in a pitcher hitting, but it’s not more interesting. National League baseball is really, really hard to watch.

I really haven’t seen a good argument yet why it isn’t used in both leagues other than “that’s not the way the game was meant to be played.” I don’t think anybody would support going back to all the rules of the nineteenth century, so why cling to this one?

Well, as a regular watcher of the Cubs, C Zambrano is hitting around .350 this year with HR power (albeit no BB). One Cubs player recently said that in BP, Big Z can hit the ball further than any of the regular batters. Why should this ability to help the Cubs offense in his starts be legislated out of existence, just because most pitchers suck with the stick?

Right David.  Out of all the proposals (No DH, all DH, or home manager discretion), the last one has the most benefit, in my view.  Once you do that, you let the “market forces” dictate how baseball will move toward.

The current rule does not require anyone to use a DH. In the AL, each manager chooses whether his team will or will not have a DH. However, a manager cannot impose a decision on the other team. In the NL, there is no option for a DH.

The current rule doesn’t require you to have 3 OF and 4 IF either. 

The choice to the manager is have someone who is as good a hitter as an average college hitter, or as good a hitter as the 100th best hitter in the world.  That’s not a real choice.

Tom/24 of course you are right, that’s why you can count on one hand the number of times in 35 years an AL manager did not use a DH when given the opportunity (Ken Brett, Rick Rhoden)

It was just that reading this thread gave me the impression that some thought the DH was mandatory, which it is not

But also as I point out, I can’t recall anything in current rules, including DH, where one manager has a choice which he then gets to impose on the other team, which is what home manger discretion would do...correct me if I’m wrong

There are certain things that you can impose, like a groundskeeper, or basically, the home park itself.  Otherwise, you are right.

Can we all agree though that in a time of interleague play that having the DH rule for one league and not the other is beyond silly?  Or, as one of the other readers said, that is actually is a good quirk?  There’s really no middle ground on this particular point.

If most people agree that it’s not a good thing to have separate rules, then what’s the best way to bridge the rules to keep both sides happy?  Home manager’s discretion of DH.

I just want to re-emphasize that thrust of this thread.  If we had no DH at all for either league, would we ever agree to having the DH for the AL only?  That’d be considered a joke right?

Of, if we had DH for both leagues for 35 years, would be say that it’s a good idea for the NL to abolish?  Same joke, right?

This is the perspective I would like you to have in reading this thread, that how you can tell a rule is bad is based on that viewpoint.

Actually I think a rather interesting compromise is to BOTH have a DH and have the pitcher hitting. This obviously means moving to a ten player batting order.

This would both allow the strategy/tactics assosiated with PH and so on for the pitcher while still keeping the DH-type sluggers that many people love around.

Also I would like to add that the “if we had this all along” principle only holds if the “hassle” of making the change itself is relativly minor.

For instance if you asked most european icehockey fans if they would like to change to North american rink dimensions most would be opposed. And I guess the same would be the opinion of north american fans if the question was reversed.

Personally I don’t think this has to do with either beeing intrinsicaly better or worse, just with a desire to avoid a change that means A LOT of work in a lot of ways…

I just want to re-emphasize that thrust of this thread.  If we had no DH at all for either league, would we ever agree to having the DH for the AL only?  That’d be considered a joke right?

Am I missing something?  Isn’t this exactly what was done back when the DH was adopted in the 70s?  And when it was adopted in the AL it was for a three year trial, so it was also presumably confirmed by a second vote.  Also, couldn’t either league in the 30 years since then have voted to have a uniform rule if they thought it was important for the best interest of baseball as a whole or for their individual league?  It would seem that the baseball owners as a group are very comfortable having one league represent “traditional” baseball and the other “modern?” baseball.

I agree about the “relatively minor”.  Obviously, structural physical changes are another thing.  All rule discussions are relatively minor in comparison.  So, I don’t see it as an issue.

Ok, so let’s discuss your proposal, which is common in company leagues, where “everyone hits”, that is, we’d have 1 or 4 DHs, and we rotate everyone on the field.

The proposal here is for a 10-man batting order, with 1 DH.  If this was what was happening for the last 35 years in both leagues, and someone said “let’s remove the pitcher from the batting order”, what would be the reaction?

I think that’s a very tough question, and so I think this could be a legitimate alternative.  It’s not clear to me that people would necessarily say “remove the pitcher from the batting order”.

hi Tango, this is my first time posting.  I am intrigue by your stand on rule changing.  Being not just a MLB fan, I pay much attention to International Competitions, such as the mentioned Olympics.  The 2008 Olympics featured a new OT rule for baseball, one that is different from the 1976 version.

Basically after 10th inning is over, at the start of the 11th, each teams will have runners on 1st and 2nd with 0 out.  The manager can freely choose where the line up will restart (only for the 11th inning).  Do you think this is a good rule?

Also, do you feel that this rule could give an advantage to the home team?

Thanks for posting.  This issue has come up a bit in this blog.  There is a wiki reference to it:
http://www.tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mailbags#Olympic_tie-breaker_rule_-_where_to_start_in_the_batting_lineup.3F

As well as a blog posting:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/2008_olympics/

Certainly the home team gets the advantage here, since they know exactly how many runs they need to tie or win.  It’s not a big advantage.  I’d guess .005 or .010 wins, something like that.

JD, I disagree both on soccer and on pitcher batting. Remember Felix Hernandez hitting a grand slam of freaking Johan Santana? Daisuke Matsusaka hitting a double in the world series (that was the moment when it was clear that Fogg is done for the day, he had just walked the previous batter to get to Matsusaka and out of the inning)? Or Mica Owings last year? (What’s up this year, is he injured?). Those are rather entertaining moments, mostly because of their surprise value. I think it is worth keeping this element. Also, there’s a strategic element(check THE BOOK about when to use pinch-hitters for the pitcher) being added to the sport in the NL.
Tom, I know this is probably not the direction you want this thread to go, but regarding interleague play: Does the existence of the DH in the AL really create that much of an imbalance or competitive disturbance? AL teams have an advantage due to the fact that many of them have an Ortiz, Martinez etc. on their roster while NL clubs tend not to? However, NL teams and AL teams do not compete with each other for playoff spots. That competition is strictly within the same league and all teams play the same number of interleague games if I am not mistaken. The schedule is imbalanced but that is a different issue.

The DH rule must be unique in sports anywhere in that it is used in half the games (almost) in a league therefore the controversy will not die down because every day people can compare and contrast.  If any modified DH rule was adopted by both leagues most people would get used to it and the contoversy would die down after a few years. Currently the DH controversy is like a wound that is picked at every day ansd so never heals

I remember reading somewhere a proposal which was a modified verison of the one-and-done PH. Basically when a pitch hitter replaces a pitcher ONE of them can stay in the game. So either the pitcher returns in the next inning and the PH is finsished for the day or a new pitcher comes in and the PH is still eligible to be used again. Therefore it is a compromise between the DH rule (both players stay in the game ) and the original rule (both players are out of the game).