THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Friday, August 20, 2010

“If you’re not tinkering and you’re not thinking, you’re going to end up stalling”

By Tangotiger, 11:17 AM

The NHL is ahead of its brothers here, as they not only test rules with NHL-quality players, but the GMs and media are in attendance giving the project huge scope.

Anyway, one item which seems to be a sure-fire change is:

Chief among them is a hybrid icing rule that is designed to reduce dangerous collisions resulting from a race for the puck. The proposed change gives linesmen the ability to make a ruling on whether a play will be called icing based on which player reaches the faceoff dot first—rather than who is first to touch the puck.

“Anything we can do with icing to protect our players we should do,” Ottawa Senators GM Bryan Murray said Wednesday. “If the linesman can make the call earlier, then obviously it will benefit the good players in our league.”

Organizers were so interested in the rule that it became a last-minute addition to the afternoon session because they felt they didn’t see enough of it in the morning. NHL vice-president Brendan Shanahan, who organized the research and development camp, acknowledged that the proposed change was “gaining a lot of interest and traction.”

Really, whenever you have a collision possibility of a head-to-head matchup, but where one player is mostly interested in getting to the puck and the other is mostly interested in hitting the player, you’ve got a problem.  The true intent is to have both players race for the puck, and if all the defending player has to do is get to the faceoff circle first, then he doesn’t have to worry about the offensive player.  If the offensive player beats him to the circle, then both players are going to go after the puck.  It’s a fair fight.

I have a similar problem with catchers in MLB, who, because of the limited equipment, look like they are fair game for being bowled over, but really shouldn’t be.  I think that part is completely unnecessary and at the same time highly exciting (as a spectator).  The same could be said for when the NHL used to let goalies be target practice, and the NFL didn’t protect the QB.

And then you have such seemingly benign change that has a potential for great effect:

One thing they may discuss down the line is having goalies change ends for overtime—leaving teams a long way from their bench when they’re in their own zone. A number of odd-man rushes were created when the change was made during the afternoon session.

“It really opens the game up,” said Dave King, an assistant coach with the Phoenix Coyotes who is helping out at the camp. “When you have a long change, if you make any mistake with the puck, it’s dire straits. So I think that’s one that the NHL will look at because I think it’s got good potential to open up the overtime.”

One thing we used to do in pickup games is having a “floating blue line”.  The way it works is that the blue line to enter to be onside is as usual, but to be offside, the blue line floated back to the center line.  In effect, the width of the blue line went from being whatever it is (one foot) to being 30 feet wide.  The puck has to completely cross the blue line each way in order for the play to be onside or offside.  What the NHL did for testing was double the size of the blue line:

Other changes that drew some positive reviews were the use of blue-lines that are twice as wide—giving defenceman more chance to hold the puck in the offensive zone—and shallower nets that left more room behind the goal.

The faceoff thing we talked about, where there’s alot of jockeying has a downside when you just place the puck down and whistle:

One of the complaints GMs had with the variation on the faceoff is that it seemed to remove some of the battle that comes with taking a draw. “You lose the intensity and the strength,” said Florida Panthers GM Dale Tallon. “There’s got to be more to it than just finesse. Guys are going to cheat on that anyway. “I just like the way it is.”

It’s definitely a good point, and a reason to test these changes in game situations.

And, here here, to NHL coach Ken Hitchcock for the line of the night:

“If you’re not tinkering and you’re not thinking, you’re going to end up stalling,” said Hitchcock. “These are some really creative ideas. I think there’s two, maybe three (changes), that have merit immediately—just small things that really make the game better.”

Here’s another article about what happens when you put an on-ice official off the ice:

One change that generated some buzz was the use of an off-ice referee positioned on an elevated platform beside the boards. The goal was to create more room on the ice and provide a better vantage point to spot infractions.

“It’s like Big Brother watching you,” said veteran coach Ken Hitchcock. “It’s like he can see everything and obviously when you’re up that high the game is slower. So I think the players mentally are more careful.

“A couple guys commented that you’re not going to get away with anything.”

Ontario Hockey League referees Dave Lewis and Scott Ferguson handled the officiating. Ferguson was like the hockey version of a tennis chair umpire.

“I think there’s good and bad to it,” Ferguson said. “It’s good when (Lewis) is down at the net, I can see what’s going on behind him. ... I can watch the changes on the bench, a too many men on the ice situation, I can see that.

“But you don’t feel the game, you don’t feel when the intensity starts to rise and everything. So that was the tough part about it.”

That last part I had never considered.  It seems like to a referee, that becomes fairly pivotal in terms of how they call a game. 


#1    Neil S      (see all posts) 2010/08/20 (Fri) @ 11:45

Tango wrote: “I have a similar problem with catchers in MLB, who, because of the limited equipment, look like they are fair game for being bowled over, but really shouldn’t be.”

As far as I know, though, this play is already illegal under the rules of baseball - a runner can’t contact and interfere with the catcher any more than he can the second baseman. (Much to the chagrin of one my teammates when I was 13, when he was tossed from the game and suspended for hitting the catcher with a flying check.) But for some reason it isn’t called according to the rules in pro ball.


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/08/20 (Fri) @ 12:07

The MLB rules are here:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf

NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

I don’t see anything in that passage or the rule book that prevents a runner from bowling over a catcher (or 2B) as long as he’s sliding into the base.  The baseline belongs to the runner, and the fielder takes life into his own hands when he crosses that line.  (Indeed, he’s interfering if he does so without a ball in his hand.)

***

I have to say, I am not impressed with how the rules are written.  The NHL rule book is better written, and they also have alot of real-life examples in them.  I’ve never looked at the rule book of NFL or NBA.


#3    Neil S      (see all posts) 2010/08/20 (Fri) @ 16:55

Contact rules are addressed under ‘interference’ - a runner knocking the catcher over should be out for the same reason that ARod was out for knocking the ball out of Arroyo’s glove.

(Sorry, I would pull a quote but I don’t have the time.)


#4    Kincaid      (see all posts) 2010/08/20 (Fri) @ 20:12

I don’t think the rule book says anything about running into the catcher on a play at the plate being interference.  For that matter, it doesn’t really say anything explicitly about what A-Rod did either.  What does give the umps explicit grounds to call A-Rod out is the supplemental rulebook (which I don’t think MLB makes available along with the official rules, or at least not as easily), according to this article:

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act--such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.

That rule differentiates between what A-Rod did (interference) and running into the catcher (not interference, unless you use your hands/arms to tackle him or something).  Most youth leagues have an additional rule preventing running over the catcher, but MLB doesn’t.

As for how the rules are written, I agree.  They are not well-written at all, and having one official rule book publicly available and another (the supplemental rulebook they give umpires) not available makes it worse.  It is impossible for most people who aren’t umpires to know the correct ruling on some plays because the supplemental rulebook includes things that aren’t covered in the official rules (like the A-Rod play; if you were going by the official rules only, one could easily fail to see justification for calling interference even though it was blatantly interference).  There are too many things that are ambiguous or unclear, which MLB must realize since they have a whole second rulebook to supplement it.  Hopefully that rulebook is more clear at least, but it would be nice for them to publish it with the official rules.


#5    Neil S      (see all posts) 2010/08/23 (Mon) @ 14:34

Most acts of knocking the catcher over at home would constitute ‘tackles’, I think, and the ‘flagrant use of arms or forearms’ probably also covers ‘flagrant use of flying shoulder/elbow attack’ that is the most common form of knocking over the catcher.

It’s badly written, but I think that the spirit of the rules, as it’s being expressed here, can very easily accommodate any intentionally violent collision at the plate. And if the umpires would never stand for a flying shoulder tackle being used against the second baseman - and they wouldn’t - then it shouldn’t be allowed against the catcher, either.


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/08/23 (Mon) @ 15:17

Don’t you find that plays at the plate are called semi-randomly?

First of all, the umpire looks out of position.  What is he doing between home plate and first base?  Shouldn’t he be in foul territory, so that the only thing in front of him is the plate, and then runner or catcher glove?  Case in point was yesterday, where Posada tagged Gutierrez with no ball in his glove.  The umpire was on the wrong side. 

Anyway, with all the dirt, and the sweeping of the tag, and the control of the ball, doesn’t it look like the umpire is pretty much flummoxed on those plays, and he’s going to be right 50/50?

But, if they made it a force play at home (via a commit line), then it makes it as easy to call as plays at first base.  It makes it less exciting for sure (who doesn’t love to see slides at home, and runners popping up in celebration of scoring the run), but that excitement comes with the cost that umpires are going to be wrong a fair share of the time.  If that’s fine, that’s fine.

But, let’s not pretend that umpires are making good calls on plays at the plate.  And let’s not pretend that the easy way to fix it will remove a flavor of baseball.  That is, we are happy to accept imperfect calls so that we can see great plays.


#7    Davor      (see all posts) 2010/08/24 (Tue) @ 02:02

I remember some umpire or official saying that if A-Rod had run through Arroyo like he would through the catcher, it would have been legal play.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 12 05:18
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 12 04:55
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 12 03:15
New PECOTA

Feb 12 02:42
Whitney Houston

Feb 12 02:23
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?

Feb 12 00:40
Clutch analogy

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential